So, the abortion issue is now back in the limelight...

[BDKJMU]

The Texas bill has some interesting portions drafted into it. Almost like somebody was paying attention to what California did with Prop 65 here recently.

Are you referring to the portion where it allows citizens to bring suit against anyone suspected of getting an abortion? The legislators have deputized and given monetary incentive to the population to enforce the law and in turn distancing themselves from an enforcement responsibility. What sort of toothless garbage is that? That's some Big Government nonsense there.

Not to mention, they want to regulate what you can do to your body and then these same people get all bitchy and violent about vaccines. The hypocrisy is astounding.

And before I get labeled as something - i'm pro-life and that includes anti-death penalty

Well the vax mandating left say in regards to abortion, ‘my body/my choice’, but when it comes to the vaccines, it ain’t your body/your choice. How is that any less hypocritical?

[Ibanez]

Are you referring to the portion where it allows citizens to bring suit against anyone suspected of getting an abortion? The legislators have deputized and given monetary incentive to the population to enforce the law and in turn distancing themselves from an enforcement responsibility. What sort of toothless garbage is that? That's some Big Government nonsense there.

Not to mention, they want to regulate what you can do to your body and then these same people get all bitchy and violent about vaccines. The hypocrisy is astounding.

And before I get labeled as something - i'm pro-life and that includes anti-death penalty

Yes I am. California farmed out the enforcement of Prop 65 to individuals and legal firms by saying there is a fine for non-compliance but we do not have the time or manpower to go after companies that break it so they just take a hefty cut of the fine and the rest goes to the person/firm that reported the non-compliance.

Ingenious little scheme if I do say so myself.


As for the rest of the bill, my guess it was crafted so that it will go directly to the Supreme Court and my suspicions are that is why the Supreme Court did not issue an injunction. They are interested in taking up the case once more.

I do not fully agree with your second paragraph because it depends on when you consider a person alive. Technically they are saying that since both voices cannot be heard, neither gets power over the other.

As for how they are going about it, I do not know enough about Texas law (really anything) to say one way or another. I do not like that they farmed it out, but then again I didn't like when California farmed out their Prop 65 stupidity either. My opinion is that it sets a dangerous precedent of absolving governments from enforcing their own rules.

It is ingenious and quite awful.


My second paragraph is about vulnerable populations. If we're enacting a law to preserve the life of someone that can't protect themselves (fetuses), then why wouldn't we enact a law to protect other vulnerable populations? And I agree - that's a slippery slope. But I would stress that we have a duty to protect the vulnerable.

Your final opinion is one I share.

[Winterborn]

Yes I am. California farmed out the enforcement of Prop 65 to individuals and legal firms by saying there is a fine for non-compliance but we do not have the time or manpower to go after companies that break it so they just take a hefty cut of the fine and the rest goes to the person/firm that reported the non-compliance.

Ingenious little scheme if I do say so myself.


As for the rest of the bill, my guess it was crafted so that it will go directly to the Supreme Court and my suspicions are that is why the Supreme Court did not issue an injunction. They are interested in taking up the case once more.

I do not fully agree with your second paragraph because it depends on when you consider a person alive. Technically they are saying that since both voices cannot be heard, neither gets power over the other.

As for how they are going about it, I do not know enough about Texas law (really anything) to say one way or another. I do not like that they farmed it out, but then again I didn't like when California farmed out their Prop 65 stupidity either. My opinion is that it sets a dangerous precedent of absolving governments from enforcing their own rules.

It is ingenious and quite awful.


My second paragraph is about vulnerable populations. If we're enacting a law to preserve the life of someone that can't protect themselves (fetuses), then why wouldn't we enact a law to protect other vulnerable populations? And I agree - that's a slippery slope. But I would stress that we have a duty to protect the vulnerable.

Your final opinion is one I share.

I definitely do not disagree with that. As with anything it comes down to the details and how one defines a vulnerable population. Personally if one cannot speak up for themselves is a clear dividing line.

[Ibanez]

Are you referring to the portion where it allows citizens to bring suit against anyone suspected of getting an abortion? The legislators have deputized and given monetary incentive to the population to enforce the law and in turn distancing themselves from an enforcement responsibility. What sort of toothless garbage is that? That's some Big Government nonsense there.

Not to mention, they want to regulate what you can do to your body and then these same people get all bitchy and violent about vaccines. The hypocrisy is astounding.

And before I get labeled as something - i'm pro-life and that includes anti-death penalty

Well the vax mandating left say in regards to abortion, ‘my body/my choice’, but when it comes to the vaccines, it ain’t your body/your choice. How is that any less hypocritical?

I'm not saying it isn't. I'm not defending the Right or Left side of this. Even my stance is hypocritical b/c i'm pro-life, i'm well aware of that. Life is either precious or it isn't. The Republicans in Texas are saying it's my my body/ my choice in regards to vaccines. However when it comes to pregnancy it's your body/my choice.

Vaccines saves lives (in fact, so can abortions). If Republicans really cared about saving a life - they'd be open to doing whatever they can to preserve their own.

The really crazy part is that Texas is handing over enforcement it's population. As a small government Republican, how can you be ok with that? What's to stop a Democratic majority enacting a law that says anyone caught or suspecting of rooting for JMU can be tried for sedition or whatever? Texas Republicans just turned all 29M people in the state into hall monitors.

[Ibanez]

It is ingenious and quite awful.


My second paragraph is about vulnerable populations. If we're enacting a law to preserve the life of someone that can't protect themselves (fetuses), then why wouldn't we enact a law to protect other vulnerable populations? And I agree - that's a slippery slope. But I would stress that we have a duty to protect the vulnerable.

Your final opinion is one I share.

I definitely do not disagree with that. As with anything it comes down to the details and how one defines a vulnerable population. Personally if one cannot speak up for themselves is a clear dividing line.

Agree. Or what if one can speak up but has no "voice". Like a 10 year old. Or what if they're sick...like an 85 yr old in a nursing home? Both are due our protection. Otherwise, let's just leave the old folks on a hill or send them out on an ice float.

[UNI88]

Texas Republicans are perfectly ok with a random person bring a lawsuit against a woman because she did something legal to her body (Roe v. Wade is still on the books). AND if there's a conviction, that random person gets $10,000. What a farce and dangerous precedent. Democrats somewhere now have legal precedent to enact something equally stupid.

Preservation of life is one thing....but how about working to teach accountability and responsibility so that women don't have to get abolitions (unless it's medically necessary to save a life). To paraphrase President Matt Santos

They already did. See my post above.

When in the past have governments encouraged citizens to tattle on each other? How did it end up working out in those instances? Are they models that we should be following?

Note: this isn't aimed at you WB, but at both the CA and TX laws.

[89Hen]

Like Cleets once said…if men could get pregnant abortion clinics would be like Starbucks.

One of the reason he doesn't post here anymore.

[Baldy]

Are you referring to the portion where it allows citizens to bring suit against anyone suspected of getting an abortion? The legislators have deputized and given monetary incentive to the population to enforce the law and in turn distancing themselves from an enforcement responsibility. What sort of toothless garbage is that? That's some Big Government nonsense there.

Not to mention, they want to regulate what you can do to your body and then these same people get all bitchy and violent about vaccines. The hypocrisy is astounding.

And before I get labeled as something - i'm pro-life and that includes anti-death penalty

This bill just solidifies the conk base. The movers and shakers can always secretly fly their daughters and mistresses somewhere else to take care of their mistakes.

Like Cleets once said…if men could get pregnant abortion clinics would be like Starbucks.

What I'm hearing from the progtard base is that men can menstruate, have PMS, breast feed, and have babies.

[89Hen]

Not to mention, they want to regulate what you can do to your body and then these same people get all bitchy and violent about vaccines. The hypocrisy is astounding.

Negative

[Ibanez]

Not to mention, they want to regulate what you can do to your body and then these same people get all bitchy and violent about vaccines. The hypocrisy is astounding.

Negative

You're saying Republicans aren't regulating women's health with abortion laws? Or they aren't getting angry and violent and protesting COVID vaccines and restrictions?

[Ibanez]

This bill just solidifies the conk base. The movers and shakers can always secretly fly their daughters and mistresses somewhere else to take care of their mistakes.

Like Cleets once said…if men could get pregnant abortion clinics would be like Starbucks.

What I'm hearing from the progtard base is that men can menstruate, have PMS, breast feed, and have babies.

Not men...how dare you define them?!

[UNI88]

Negative

You're saying Republicans aren't regulating women's health with abortion laws? Or they aren't getting angry and violent and protesting COVID vaccines and restrictions?

He could be saying that they're not getting bitchy about vaccines (or masks) but I'm not sure I'm buying either one. They're sensitive little Karens when it comes to masks.

[Ibanez]

They already did. See my post above.

When in the past have governments encouraged citizens to tattle on each other? How did it end up working out in those instances? Are they models that we should be following?

Note: this isn't aimed at you WB, but at both the CA and TX laws.

Juden....JUDEN!

[kalm]

This bill just solidifies the conk base. The movers and shakers can always secretly fly their daughters and mistresses somewhere else to take care of their mistakes.

Like Cleets once said…if men could get pregnant abortion clinics would be like Starbucks.

What I'm hearing from the progtard base is that men can menstruate, have PMS, breast feed, and have babies.

Asking for a friend?

[kalm]

Like Cleets once said…if men could get pregnant abortion clinics would be like Starbucks.

One of the reason he doesn't post here anymore.

[Ibanez]

Personally - get a vaccine if you want it. If not, that's your choice.
Get an abortion if you want it. If not, that's your choice. I wish you wouldn't but I understand there are circumstances and situations that come up and I'd rather something so awful and tragic be legal and done safely if it's going to occur anyway. We don't want Baby running to get Daddy when Penny has a bad doctor.

And I recognize the hypocrisy in my stance. It's not easy.

[Winterborn]

They already did. See my post above.

When in the past have governments encouraged citizens to tattle on each other? How did it end up working out in those instances? Are they models that we should be following?

Note: this isn't aimed at you WB, but at both the CA and TX laws.

88, I would not care if it was. I always give your statements the benefit of the doubt and while I more than occasionally find your fence-sitting nature to be annoying I try to look past that and see what you are really getting at.


As for your question, some of the darkest days in History are when citizens turned on each other.

[Winterborn]

Personally - get a vaccine if you want it. If not, that's your choice.
Get an abortion if you want it. If not, that's your choice. I wish you wouldn't but I understand there are circumstances and situations that come up and I'd rather something so awful and tragic be legal and done safely if it's going to occur anyway. We don't want Baby running to get Daddy when Penny has a bad doctor.

And I recognize the hypocrisy in my stance. It's not easy.

We all have those areas and that is what makes debates fun IMHO. We all argue about what the perfect system/regulation would be but in the end there is not going to be a perfect system as there are no perfect humans.

It is all about recognizing our flaws/blindspots and try to overcome them. In the end try to leave something that is better for the next generation.

[Ibanez]

When in the past have governments encouraged citizens to tattle on each other? How did it end up working out in those instances? Are they models that we should be following?

Note: this isn't aimed at you WB, but at both the CA and TX laws.

88, I would not care if it was. I always give your statements the benefit of the doubt and while I more than occasionally find your fence-sitting nature to be annoying I try to look past that and see what you are really getting at.


As for your question, some of the darkest days in History are when citizens turned on each other.

[Baldy]

What I'm hearing from the progtard base is that men can menstruate, have PMS, breast feed, and have babies.

Asking for a friend?

All two of them.

Seeing the Scanners type head explosions of Leftists on Twatter has been quite enjoyable though.

[Ivytalk]

88, I would not care if it was. I always give your statements the benefit of the doubt and while I more than occasionally find your fence-sitting nature to be annoying I try to look past that and see what you are really getting at.


As for your question, some of the darkest days in History are when citizens turned on each other.

Heck (to quote GF), people turn on each other all the time around here.

[89Hen]

You're saying Republicans aren't regulating women's health with abortion laws?

They are not

[89Hen]

Personally - get a vaccine if you want it. If not, that's your choice.
Get an abortion if you want it. If not, that's your choice.

False analogy.

[89Hen]

If you want to take birth control, that's your choice.
If you want to have cosmetic surgery, that's your choice.
If you want to get a face tattoo, that's your choice.
If you want to take drugs, that's your choice.
The second you take the life of another... we have a problem.

[93henfan]

This bill just solidifies the conk base. The movers and shakers can always secretly fly their daughters and mistresses somewhere else to take care of their mistakes.

Like Cleets once said…if men could get pregnant abortion clinics would be like Starbucks.

What I'm hearing from the progtard base is that men can menstruate, have PMS, breast feed, and have babies.

Correct. Women can get pregnant, and they can also identify as men. Ergo, men can get pregnant.

It's official now. They have an emoji.
https://people.com/parents/pregnant-man ... egnancies/