Most extreme abortion law in US takes effect in Texas

A place to have discussions about anything else
User avatar
dont_think_twice
Director of Sandbags
Posts: 550
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2020 4:15 am

Re: Most extreme abortion law in US takes effect in Texas

Post by dont_think_twice »

The really interesting thing about this law is how it was crafted to take effect. If you pass a normal law in the US that says abortion is illegal, it will be struck down before it takes effect, because the supreme court has ruled such a law unconstitutional. So this law was carefully crafted to ensure that nobody could be sued prior to the law being implemented - that's why the enforcement is basically legalized vigilante-ism.

What else could be done with this approach? You could pass a law making church illegal, for instance. Or shutting down newspapers you don't like.

Basically, it allows legislative majorities to impose laws that impinge on the rights of minority groups in a way that they don't get immediately struck down by the supreme court. Basically, populism.

It is kinda weird that the supreme court let this go through. Obviously, the five justices that voted to allow it are sympathetic to the outcome, but they already have the votes to change the constitutionality of abortion, without forfeiting the entire bill of rights.
Tony0945
Bride Kidnapping Expert
Posts: 253
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2021 9:01 pm

Re: Most extreme abortion law in US takes effect in Texas

Post by Tony0945 »

Rights? You don't need no stinking rights! What are you? A commie? /s
Shta
Chief of Unicorn Division
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2021 9:59 pm

Re: Most extreme abortion law in US takes effect in Texas

Post by Shta »

dont_think_twice wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 11:53 pm It is kinda weird that the supreme court let this go through. Obviously, the five justices that voted to allow it are sympathetic to the outcome, but they already have the votes to change the constitutionality of abortion, without forfeiting the entire bill of rights.
Wait, what tricks did they use there actually?
And what's unconstitutional about this ban?
Rights? You don't need no stinking rights! What are you? A commie? /s
That's a ridiculously one-sided point of view, don't you think?
Like, don't you guys for example require someone to be actually convicted before putting him to death?
Ralphred
Chief of Unicorn Division
Posts: 165
Joined: Tue May 11, 2021 4:22 pm

Re: Most extreme abortion law in US takes effect in Texas

Post by Ralphred »

Shta wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 3:46 pmLike, don't you guys for example require someone to be actually convicted before putting him to death?
Nah, just send them an IOU if it turns out they were innocent, much more efficient.
Were Dante alive today, he would agree that the tenth circle of hell is reserved for people who have non-ANSII characters in online usernames.
User avatar
dont_think_twice
Director of Sandbags
Posts: 550
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2020 4:15 am

Re: Most extreme abortion law in US takes effect in Texas

Post by dont_think_twice »

Shta wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 3:46 pm
dont_think_twice wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 11:53 pm It is kinda weird that the supreme court let this go through. Obviously, the five justices that voted to allow it are sympathetic to the outcome, but they already have the votes to change the constitutionality of abortion, without forfeiting the entire bill of rights.
Wait, what tricks did they use there actually?
Normally, a state law would be enforced by the state. If there were questions about the constitutionality of a state law, an individual could sue the state in federal court, and if the federal courts agreed that the law violated the US constitution, they would issue a ruling that the state could not enforce the law.

To avoid that outcome, this law was written to explicitly declare that the state can not enforce the law, but individual citizens can enforce it by suing other individuals who violate the law. So the supreme court decided that it couldn't prevent the law from taking effect, since it didn't know who would be enforcing the law.

You can read the ruling here if you want: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 4_8759.pdf
It's all very readable, but if you want a specific answer to your question, read Sotomayor's dissent.
And what's unconstitutional about this ban?
The supreme court has ruled multiple times that bans such as these are unconstitutional, as I am sure you are aware.
Tony0945
Bride Kidnapping Expert
Posts: 253
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2021 9:01 pm

Re: Most extreme abortion law in US takes effect in Texas

Post by Tony0945 »

To sue as an individual don't you have to prove that you were hurt? How can you be hurt by someone else's abortion?
User avatar
dont_think_twice
Director of Sandbags
Posts: 550
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2020 4:15 am

Re: Most extreme abortion law in US takes effect in Texas

Post by dont_think_twice »

Tony0945 wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 3:30 pm To sue as an individual don't you have to prove that you were hurt? How can you be hurt by someone else's abortion?
The law explicitly grants standing to sue to anyone:
Any person, other than an officer or
employee of a state or local governmental entity in this state, may
bring a civil action against any person who:
(1) performs or induces an abortion in violation of
this subchapter;
(2) knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets
the performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for
or reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance or
otherwise, if the abortion is performed or induced in violation of
this subchapter, regardless of whether the person knew or should
have known that the abortion would be performed or induced in
violation of this subchapter; or
(3) intends to engage in the conduct described by
Subdivision (1) or (2).
Read the whole law:
https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB8/id/2395961
Shta
Chief of Unicorn Division
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2021 9:59 pm

Re: Most extreme abortion law in US takes effect in Texas

Post by Shta »

dont_think_twice wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 2:57 pm
And what's unconstitutional about this ban?
The supreme court has ruled multiple times that bans such as these are unconstitutional, as I am sure you are aware.
You see, the thing is I don't know what defines the category of "such as these".
And no, I'm not aware. I keep tabs on a lot of shit going on around the world, but I neither live in USA nor am google. Also, I'm usually more interested in feeling the tide than largely irrelevant (to me) details of implementation.
To sue as an individual don't you have to prove that you were hurt? How can you be hurt by someone else's abortion?
Baby daddy for example?
Baby grandparents? Perhaps baby aunts/uncles? I'm sure there are some people who would happily take care of the blood relatives, should they get abandoned rather than shredded.

If the procedure falls under "health care" umbrella, i suppose it's funded by taxation, in which case it absolutely makes sense to allow anyone who pays taxes to sue. Being forced to pay for something you despise, or which goes directly against your religion (Do you have freedom of faith yet?), you consider evil for whatever other reason (freedom of conscience?); doesn't being forced to participate in something you loath hurt you?

Finally, how is it different to a murder? Civilized* states prohibit murder by default, there is no need for any civilian to sue anyone for it.
* Admittedly, there is not much civility left in any state.

Now, I actually lean towards the pro-choice side, but only as a logical consequence of property rights and personal liberty. Which currently is not respected _anyway_, so I feel free to just ignore that part and back the other side on their points that actually make some sense.
Say, if alimony laws exist because it's good for the children (which seems to be a lie way more often than not), then shredding babies absolutely should be banned for the same reason (and it would actually hold some merit this time).
Some consistency, please.
User avatar
RoGeorge
National Metrics Strategist
Posts: 255
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2020 4:47 am

Re: Most extreme abortion law in US takes effect in Texas

Post by RoGeorge »

Shta, you have been tricked, aka mind conditioned, or more straightforward said, you have been brainwashed into believing in lies and fairy tales. That doesn't mean you, or any other people who has faith is stupid. No, just hijacked. Also, in the next text when I write "you", or talk directly, I'm not talking to you Shta, but to you the reader.

I am not trying to offend anybody, just talking directly, without beating around the bush, only goal is direct talk to make the idea clear. Also, I don't despise religious people, but I feel some sort of sorrow for them. That's funny, because many of them told they are sorrow for me, or for my "lost soul".

It's curious how both sides describes the others as some sort of "lost souls", don't you think?



-------------
You see, human minds in some sorts are just like computers, they can be programmed. Load a video game and the same hardware turns into a playing canvas, load an office software and the same hardware turns into a working canvas.

Almost the same happens with humans, except the "programs" are loaded/changed by keep repeating something to them. Repeat them any lie often enough, and eventually they'll start believing that lie as truth. If you start lying them since childhood, even better.



-------------
Religion and mysticism was always about frightening others, in order to impress them or to control them.

IMO religion was one of the biggest pest in human history, especially the monotheistic ones:
- religious wars for the reason that "my imaginary friend is better than yours" (e.g. holy wars, Crusades, Jihad, etc.)
- masses kept in ignorance and stifled progress for centuries (thinking medieval times, dark ages)
- abusive religious police and religious organized crime (i.e. Knight Templars, Inquisition, etc.)
- organized crime in the name of whatever god(s) were fashionable in whatever times or places (thinking for example beheading and burning on a stake)

That is why any religious argument is void. Not to say that at any moment ANY religious argument can be defeated by creating another religion with opposite teaching. Freedom of religion you say? OK then, maybe that woman who needs an abortion is a Satan's worshiper, so all your religious arguments are bollocks for her religion.

Again, you have been brainwashed. Religion is not for making people better, religion is for tricking people into believing old tales and stories in order to keep them blinded and under control.



-------------
Now, about the argument "Civilized* states prohibit murder by default".

That's funny, they all do pretend so, when in fact they practice a monopoly on crime.

Civilized or not, any state, or government, or dictator, etc. has in fact a monopoly on crime. You are not allow to kill others, but the government, the police, the army, the secret agencies, their payed hitmans and so on are allowed to murder "legally" and "religiously correct". They have a permit to kill and you don't. That's what prohibited murder is about, no matter the country or how "civilized" it is.



-------------
About shredding fetuses, yes sounds cruel, but at that age they are rather a bunch of cells. Awareness and consciousness emerges much later, in the first couple of years or so, certainly much later, only after the fetus is fully developed and born.



-------------
I am rather conservative in many aspects, but the anti-abortion laws are an abuse.
They bring misery for all, parents, kids and society.

If it's not your own body, then just step off of your high horses, and mind your own fucking business.

Rule #1: Nobody should have rights over somebody else's body.
Tony0945
Bride Kidnapping Expert
Posts: 253
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2021 9:01 pm

Re: Most extreme abortion law in US takes effect in Texas

Post by Tony0945 »

dont_think_twice wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 3:45 pm The law explicitly grants standing to sue to anyone:
Sounds even more Unconstitutional to me. Opens the gates to anyone suing about anything that offends their religious beliefs.

Say, one could sue against male sexual mutilation (ritual circumcision), meat eating, swearing on the Sabbath, ...
User avatar
dont_think_twice
Director of Sandbags
Posts: 550
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2020 4:15 am

Re: Most extreme abortion law in US takes effect in Texas

Post by dont_think_twice »

Shta wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 8:55 pm
dont_think_twice wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 2:57 pm
And what's unconstitutional about this ban?
The supreme court has ruled multiple times that bans such as these are unconstitutional, as I am sure you are aware.
You see, the thing is I don't know what defines the category of "such as these".
And no, I'm not aware.
The US Supreme Court ruled in 1973:
State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a 'compelling' point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163-164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163-164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164—165.
Ralphred
Chief of Unicorn Division
Posts: 165
Joined: Tue May 11, 2021 4:22 pm

Re: Most extreme abortion law in US takes effect in Texas

Post by Ralphred »

RoGeorge wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:39 pmIf it's not your own body, then just step off of your high horses, and mind your own fucking business.

Rule #1: Nobody should have rights over somebody else's body.
This is too reductive, and unworkable in a modern society. The populace is what grants the the courts and police the powers they have to infringe others rights; in a functioning democracy the laws of the land are a gestalt of the morality of it's denizens. This is why when a van containing 3 men that break down the door to a house, restrain it's occupants and take them away in the back of the van we call that arresting suspects and not kidnapping, there is evidence to suggest that the occupants of the house have broken the agreed on moral code of the society, and that was the result.
In this (hypothetical) case the right of the occupants freedom was curtailed in favour of the rights of other locals to walk the streets and go about their daily business without having to hand over their hard earn valuables at the point of a gun.

Within this paradigm there has been no removal of rights, merely a balancing of rights in line with the moral gestalt of the Texan population, re: At six weeks it's the general belief that to respect the right to life of the unborn child is of higher moral value than the right of the expectant mother to abort the child. It's this very simple calculation that has so many people seething, because they are being judged to fall short of an accepted moral standard, so accepted it's now become law.
When you consider the context that this is no longer the seventeenth century, and bearing a child out of wedlock does not "ruin you for life" as it would have done back then, medical advancements mean that a 20 week gestation period leads to a viable baby 50% of the time, and we have more means of birth control than ever before, anyone taking a binary stance on this issue needs to do some introspection as to why their position is so unreasonable, because "abortion up to birth" is as unreasonable as "no abortion at all, for any reason".

As far as religion is concerned, you don't really have the right to question where someones moral beliefs come from, they just are an innate part of that person that you have to accept as a member of a diverse society.
Also, said as a staunch atheist, anyone who says there is no wisdom contained within religious doctrines and texts is either ignorant, a fool or a liar; all they are is a set of instructions for building a successful and continuing society (albeit warped by priests and other religious officials of whatever denomination over the centuries) and until you can see the point of trying to include that wisdom from the context of when it was written, you should really leave it alone.

Personally, and I'm sure I mirror the thoughts of reasonable people everywhere, it's not a case of if abortion should be legal, just the time frame under which it should be. I have my personal lines in the sand I would rather not be crossed, but as I'm not a rabid activist for either extreme position I'm open to arguments from both sides, and reaching a compromise on what this time frame should be. It's also not as if there is a cabal of secret agents drugging random women and implanting fertilised zygotes in their womb's, you can't win the lottery if you don't buy a ticket.

When you consider that there are proto-families unable to acquire that which you have inadvertently created with your choice of actions, not having the strength of character to accept the consequences of your choices and make good of the situation is sociopathic to me, but I bet there are fewer non-religious types that feel this strongly about the subject as I do.
Were Dante alive today, he would agree that the tenth circle of hell is reserved for people who have non-ANSII characters in online usernames.
Shta
Chief of Unicorn Division
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2021 9:59 pm

Re: Most extreme abortion law in US takes effect in Texas

Post by Shta »

RoGeorge wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:39 pm Shta, you have been tricked, aka mind conditioned, or more straightforward said, you have been brainwashed into believing in lies and fairy tales. That doesn't mean you, or any other people who has faith is stupid.
(...)
That's funny, because many of them told they are sorrow for me, or for my "lost soul".
Let me correct that: I don't give a fuck about your personal soul, and I don't understand what made you think I'm religious.
I'm just capable of shifting to 3rd person view, and I'm allergic to BS excuses.
If it's not your own body, then just step off of your high horses, and mind your own fucking business.
Rule #1: Nobody should have rights over somebody else's body.
The baby inside you is not your body either, so I guess you step off of your high horses and let it live it's life.
If you should not have rights over somebody else's body, you should in particular not have the right to destroy it.


I think we can build a decent society based on property rights.
I already said in my previous post that if we really take property seriously, then legalizing scrubbing is a logical consequence.
But we are not taking it seriously, because of other values (and many BS excuses) in play, therefore I say it makes more sense to ban this procedure. Sort out the more obvious and more extreme violations of ownership first and then we can go into more shady areas without being hypocrites.

Don't pity me, just address my point.
User avatar
RoGeorge
National Metrics Strategist
Posts: 255
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2020 4:47 am

Re: Most extreme abortion law in US takes effect in Texas

Post by RoGeorge »

Shta wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 9:53 pm Don't pity me, just address my point.
Sorry for taking your opinion about life/abortion as coming from a religious person. My mistake. Since you are not religious, then it was not you who I was pitying.

The point was addressed when I've written in the previous post:
About shredding fetuses, yes sounds cruel, but at that age they are rather a bunch of cells. Awareness and consciousness emerges much later, in the first couple of years or so, certainly much later, only after the fetus is fully developed and born.

while you are seeing this differently, like the fetus would be an independent and fully developed person:
Shta wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 9:53 pm The baby inside you is not your body either
I think this is what makes us taking opposite sides regarding abortion laws. You consider the fetus as an independent being, while I'm seeing the fetus as a bunch of cells, a part of the mother's body.

I consider the fetus is part of the mother's body, because the fetus can not exist independently. Also the fetus does not has a mind, or awareness. I think you misidentify the fetus as a human being and you are trying to protect, but the fetus is not yet a human being. That is, I think, the reason we disagree.



--------------
I still stand for the rule that nobody should have rights over somebody else's body. And a fetus is not yet a "somebody", so you can not replace "somebody" with "fetus" to justify an abusive law.

The only way you might have a word to say about abortion would be if you are the father. Even then, the mother should have the last word. Giving birth is a woman's job, let them mind their own business. In most of the animal kingdom the female chooses the father.

If a female don't want a child, then go find another female that is more willing. Forcing a women to have an unwanted child (even if you are the father) would be an abuse, on par with raping.



--------------
We had anti abortion laws in Romania. Ceausescu wanted more workers, and since nobody would have wanted to immigrate in a communist/socialist/dictatorship's country, his only option was forced breeding. Anti abortion laws combined with banning contraceptive measures (for example condoms suddenly became smuggled goods).

Birth rate increased indeed, except even the proletariat started to hate him because of that decree of law. The number of women deaths (caused by improvised/illegal abortion) also increased. Countless lives wasted in prisons, too (doctors/midwifes/pregnant women prosecuted for abortion). Countless unwanted kids abandoned.

Fate irony about 20 years later, that generation that Ceasescu breed by force back then will become the firing squad that executed him and his wife.



--------------
@Ralphred
I still think nobody should have rights over somebody else's body.

Having rights over somebody else's body has nothing to do with democracy or with society or with religion. Having rights over somebody else's body would be an abuse no mater how elaborated the argument to justify such an abuse would be. This would be like justifying slavery because it's good for the economy.

I am a man, so no matter how hard I would try, I would never be able to understand the horror of a woman forced to give birth against her will, for example after a rape.

And for what such a law? Only because otherwise it will upset some random set of thoughts and beliefs, set that somehow got viral thousands of years ago, flawed AF even back then, let alone for our times. That's outrageous.
Ralphred
Chief of Unicorn Division
Posts: 165
Joined: Tue May 11, 2021 4:22 pm

Re: Most extreme abortion law in US takes effect in Texas

Post by Ralphred »

RoGeorge wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 3:04 amI think this is what makes us taking opposite sides regarding abortion laws. You consider the fetus as an independent being, while I'm seeing the fetus as a bunch of cells, a part of the mother's body.
So at some point, you logically have to drawer a line between "independent life with value" and "clump of cells", for the moderates engaging in the debate this is all the argument is about.
RoGeorge wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 3:04 amAwareness and consciousness emerges much later
Some animals never become aware by human standards, but we don't advocate for slaughter by ripping their limbs off. As nerve endings are developed at around 7 weeks gestation this will be used by some some as a potential to feel pain, others 12-14 weeks when there is sufficient definition in the brain development, and finally some who will use 18 weeks when an "adult" hormonal and stress response is observable in reaction too what would be considered a "painful stimulation".
RoGeorge wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 3:04 amHaving rights over somebody else's body has nothing to do with democracy or with society or with religion. Having rights over somebody else's body would be an abuse no mater how elaborated the argument to justify such an abuse would be.
So you would no longer advocate for the imprisonment of murderers? Because that's what you have just done if you want to remain consistent in the argument that a society does not have the right to limit the rights of those that infringe against established moral boundaries.
RoGeorge wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 3:04 amThis would be like justifying slavery because it's good for the economy.
Poor attempt at a strawman; as a purely conceptual entity "the economy" has no rights to balance against those of the enslaved, hence the slaves are never allowed to become such.

You also have to consider that modern societies value things that exist in potentia, hence the ability to sue for things like "loss of earnings", they never existed except in potentia, yet we assign value. This influences the point at which advocating for the unborn becomes an ethical good, because of the potential alone.
RoGeorge wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 3:04 amOnly because otherwise it will upset some random set of thoughts and beliefs, set that somehow got viral thousands of years ago
In your own words
The number of women deaths (caused by improvised/illegal abortion) also increased.
So in a time when there was no such thing as a medically safe abortion, you can't see how outlawing a practice that has the ability not only render infertile, but actually kill, potential mothers has merit? You can't see how an ancient society that outlawed this practice has more chance to succeed that one that doesn't? There is a long history of protecting women as what they bring to the reproductive table is far less scalable that that which men bring, you can drawer this conclusion alone with logic and by observing the current evolutionary state of male and female bodies.
RoGeorge wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 3:04 amForcing a women to have an unwanted child (even if you are the father) would be an abuse, on par with raping.
So you are saying women don't have enough agency to avoid pregnancy in the first place? If we are going to start arguing with rabid foam forming at the side of our mouths, I could say that getting pregnant is a choice, and any woman who won't give up 9 months of some of her freedoms to give 80 years of life to another is demonically selfish and morally repugnant.
Were Dante alive today, he would agree that the tenth circle of hell is reserved for people who have non-ANSII characters in online usernames.
User avatar
RoGeorge
National Metrics Strategist
Posts: 255
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2020 4:47 am

Re: Most extreme abortion law in US takes effect in Texas

Post by RoGeorge »

To me it seems like you got it all wrong, Ralphred, and to you it probably seems that I got it all wrong.

I don't see any common ground, and being so different from each other it would simply take too much time to describe the point clear enough so to make sense to each other. I would not bring any more arguments.

Though, I would have gladly debated a little longer if it were to be a casual chat around a fire camp, or alike, but that is not physically possible so I'll just let it go.



------------------
Ralphred wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 12:37 pm
RoGeorge wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 3:04 amOnly because otherwise it will upset some random set of thoughts and beliefs, set that somehow got viral thousands of years ago
In your own words
The number of women deaths (caused by improvised/illegal abortion) also increased.
So in a time when there was no such thing as a medically safe abortion, you can't see how outlawing a practice that has the ability not only render infertile, but actually kill, potential mothers has merit? You can't see how an ancient society that outlawed this practice has more chance to succeed that one that doesn't? There is a long history of protecting women as what they bring to the reproductive table is far less scalable that that which men bring, you can drawer this conclusion alone with logic and by observing the current evolutionary state of male and female bodies.
You quoted out of order, then draw a wrong conclusion. Not sure why you reversed the order, so just to be clear:

Anti-abortion law in Romania started in 1967. There were safe medical procedures, good doctors and plenty of hospitals, and medical care was free, before and after 1967. I was not talking about abortion during biblical times. The women in Romania started to die from abortion only after the 1967 law, because instead of doing the abortion safe, in a hospital, they were doing the abortion in improvised locations, illegal and on the run, with unqualified friends and family instead of doctors.

Outlawing abortion will not stop abortion. Abortions will still happen at a lower rate, only it will happen illegally, in improvised locations and without qualified medics. Dodgy abortion procedures will often lead to women deaths.
User avatar
mrbassie
Director of Sandbags
Posts: 546
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2020 9:29 am

Re: Most extreme abortion law in US takes effect in Texas

Post by mrbassie »

Reasons for abortion (that I can think of), in no paticular order:

1: Family won't tolerate cultural/racial mix.
2: Save the mother's life.
3: Thottery(see 4).
3 1/2: Social engineering (see 3 and or 4).
4: Farming (see 3).
5: Despite already being one, one of the parents doesn't want to be a parent, the other does.
6: Can't afford to feed the child.

I'd accept one of those.
Ralphred
Chief of Unicorn Division
Posts: 165
Joined: Tue May 11, 2021 4:22 pm

Re: Most extreme abortion law in US takes effect in Texas

Post by Ralphred »

RoGeorge wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 3:40 pmYou quoted out of order, then draw a wrong conclusion. Not sure why you reversed the order
To give insight to you about how these
random set of thoughts and beliefs, set that somehow went viral
have merit and exert selection pressure when observed from a "societal evolution" point of view.
Many questionable religious practices make sense when viewed through such a lens, you should try it.
Were Dante alive today, he would agree that the tenth circle of hell is reserved for people who have non-ANSII characters in online usernames.
Shta
Chief of Unicorn Division
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2021 9:59 pm

Re: Most extreme abortion law in US takes effect in Texas

Post by Shta »

RoGeorge wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 3:04 am I think this is what makes us taking opposite sides regarding abortion laws. You consider the fetus as an independent being, while I'm seeing the fetus as a bunch of cells, a part of the mother's body.
[...]
I still stand for the rule that nobody should have rights over somebody else's body. And a fetus is not yet a "somebody", so you can not replace "somebody" with "fetus" to justify an abusive law.
Nah, I consider it a very dependent being. And it's difficult to draw the line between what conscious and what's not, or what dependency can be replaced, when we keep pushing the limits.
Selecting a particular timestamp somewhere around the middle of development process is an arbitrary decision. No matter what timestamp you pick as a cut-off point, this decision is wrong.

Now, I said already that I'm not _strictly_ against scrubbings; I know and can accept your arguments... AFTER we apply the same principle to a bunch of other violations.

So... What stance do you take on things like:
1) mandatory military service
2) child support and ex support (manymoney → in doubt, read it out aloud)
3) tax-funded social programs / benefits
4) tax-funded health-care
5) source of funding for scrubbings - this is _not_ a health-care procedure, so I list it separately
6) mask mandates, quarantines, business shutdowns, and soon-to-come mandatory jabs

I'm pretty sure I could still add a bunch of other things too, but these are contentious topics already, so let's keep it brief and see how it goes.
saellaven
Bride Kidnapping Expert
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2020 10:15 pm

Re: Most extreme abortion law in US takes effect in Texas

Post by saellaven »

Shta wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 10:12 pm So... What stance do you take on things like:
1) mandatory military service
2) child support and ex support (manymoney → in doubt, read it out aloud)
3) tax-funded social programs / benefits
4) tax-funded health-care
5) source of funding for scrubbings - this is _not_ a health-care procedure, so I list it separately
6) mask mandates, quarantines, business shutdowns, and soon-to-come mandatory jabs
I'm not going to argue for or against abortion since nobody is going to change their mind, though I personally think it constitutes murder (it is the willful taking of an innocent life - the fact that you kill someone in a doctor's office or with a pill doesn't change the fact that it is ending a life any more than if I were to kill another adult in the doctor's office).

That said, I felt more like answering your other quoted questions.

1) conscription is wrong. If you don't have enough willing support to wage a war, you shouldn't be compelling someone else to die for your cause.

2) you produced a child and you should be financially (and parentally, socially, etc) responsible for raising it until adulthood. As far as ex support goes, I do think there's something to the fact that, often, one spouse will sacrifice their career for the sake of the other to provide for the needs of the household, and that will have a deleterious effect on the domestic spouse's potential to support their self, so I would say that the maximum duration of the support should be equal to the duration of the marriage (surely someone married for 2 years hasn't made the sacrifices that someone married for 20 years has, and that 20 year spouse is going to have a much harder time advancing a career at 38+ than someone that's 25).

3) compulsory servitude is always wrong (see #1). The fact that you want free stuff doesn't mean I should be compelled to pay for it any more than I should be compelled to go to war for you.

4) see #1 and #3

5) see #1, #3, and #4. If we're going to assume that abortion is ok, it's your job to pay for your choices. Yeah, I get that rape happens, and while I have not been raped, I've been sexually assaulted several times. Murder of an innocent life (go ahead, kill your rapist if he's in the process of raping you, or do everything to convict him if you can't) is still wrong.

6) I'm ok with mask mandates in publicly owned places (ie, government buildings), but owners have the right to determine the rules for their private buildings, including public accommodations (like grocery stores); FWIW, I feel the same way about no smoking laws even though I've never smoked, I'm allergic to cigarette smoke, and I have asthma.

Quarantines should be limited to people that are currently sick, and that goes for forcing businesses to close too (if a business is a source of disease, quarantine it until it is safe, otherwise, they're free to continue operating). I lost $40k last spring during the 3 months the government shut businesses down and, despite having 60-80 individuals come in every week during the big wave last fall/winter, we had exactly 0 infections associated with our business and only 3 known clients that have tested positive for COVID (I know from them cancelling appts due to being sick, not because they were in my office) since the beginning of the pandemic (I believe COVID is real, I also believe it is relatively easy to keep safe if you use your brain).

To paraphrase the sign on the door to my office suite, "We cannot guarantee that you can not catch COVID during the middle of the pandemic. If you're vulnerable and concerned about catching the virus, or if you simply don't feel safe being in public, please call the office to cancel your appointment. By entering our facility, you imply consent to the possible risk of exposure."

Jabs should not be mandatory (see #1, #3, #4, the government has no right to compel you to do something you don't want to do - note, laws against murder don't force you to do something you don't want to do, they punish you for doing something you chose to do to harm another person), though businesses should be free to set rules for the use of their premises while, if the government is going to ban non-vaccinated people from public buildings, they need to provide an alternate means for people to deal with their government needs if they aren't allowed on site, and this includes schooling (which, in alignment with #1, #3, #4, I also believe the government should not be directly providing schooling, as they are incentivized to indoctrinate kids rather than teach them critical thinking skills - they want serfs, not thinkers).
Post Reply