Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am pro-abortion.
The more abortions the better?
[deleted]
Lyft, Uber lash out at legal threat from strict Texas abortion law
101–110 of 122 posts
Re: Lyft, Uber lash out at legal threat from strict Texas abortion law
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
This shot across the bow certainly is a good reminder for advocates of abortion access rights not to become complacent, as progress can be undone. I'm hopeful that it can act as a catalyst for advocates in the region. Extremist actions like this often create new advocates, as well as drawing external attention. There are already groups mobilizing from without and within to help Texan women who want or need an abortio…
You automatically assume abortion is progress.
No. Not forcing women to use black market methods of abortion is progress. They happen regardless.
Re: Lyft, Uber lash out at legal threat from strict Texas abortion law
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if that's a partial goal of this law. Keep the state red and have those who are more liberal leave. Ensures a nice voting block for national elections and ensures local officials do not get voted out in the future.
With such laws in place, if I would live in US there would be no place for people like me, not blue and not red (and partly blue and partly red on various topics). This is because none of the 2 sides are perfect and many people do not fall in one side. So what is the point?
You are the non-voting majority here
Re: Lyft, Uber lash out at legal threat from strict Texas abortion law
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
2. Or it will just cause the women to get abortions elsewhere, or let the kids grow up in homes that can't support them. Not to mention the extra loads of single moms (or dads). No one will be "saved". What it's more likely to accomplish is to make Texas even more republican, and to make the US appear even more crazy to the outside world.
Adoption is an option, and you have no idea who that child could become. Steve Jobs was given up for adoption because abortion wasn’t legal at the time.
Adoption still places the parents under the duress of the medical bills up to the point of adoption, nor does it address the extreme physical duress it places the mother under.
Additionally, it does not address cases of rape, incest, pregnancies which have a high chance of killing the mother, or children with severe defects (who are likely to remain in foster homes, in the average-to-good case).
Re: Lyft, Uber lash out at legal threat from strict Texas abortion law
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
Woah woah woah hold up. You're the person who actually drew the lines? Sorry if this is rude, but what the hell were you thinking?
I was a 22 year old republican given something important to do. I had no idea at the time that we were setting the country on an irredeemable path. It was as exciting at the time as it is shameful now.
Thanks for being so honest and being willing to reevaluate your stance given life experience.
Re: Lyft, Uber lash out at legal threat from strict Texas abortion law
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
This shot across the bow certainly is a good reminder for advocates of abortion access rights not to become complacent, as progress can be undone. I'm hopeful that it can act as a catalyst for advocates in the region. Extremist actions like this often create new advocates, as well as drawing external attention. There are already groups mobilizing from without and within to help Texan women who want or need an abortio…
You automatically assume abortion is progress.
Can you explain exactly what you were trying to accomplish with this comment? Government noninterference in access to abortion services provided by licensed medical practitioners meets my definition of social progress. If you feel the need to distill that down to "abortion is progress," I'm comfortable with that. Abortion is progress because it means that women have access to abortion that is less obstructed by non-medical interference.
Re: Lyft, Uber lash out at legal threat from strict Texas abortion law
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was a 22 year old republican given something important to do. I had no idea at the time that we were setting the country on an irredeemable path. It was as exciting at the time as it is shameful now.
Thanks for being so honest and being willing to reevaluate your stance given life experience.
I've told many people 5hat for all the good and bad I've done in life, the one thing that worries me if there actually is St Peter is my work on the congressional maps. Not to self agrandize (sp) and what's done is done, but the impact continues to be awful for the state and the country as a whole.
Re: Lyft, Uber lash out at legal threat from strict Texas abortion law
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
Abbott is up for re-election in ~one year, though. Edit: this isn’t to say Democrats will or won’t win…but it’s also not to say Abbott won’t simply get primary’d out.
> it’s also not to say Abbott won’t simply get primary’d out Is a newsworthy and heavy handed anti-abortion bill likely to make a republican governor more vulnerable to a primary challenge? In Texas?
I think it is likely to do so. I live and TX, and most Texans, by my measure, do not want to be told what they can and cannot do.
Re: Lyft, Uber lash out at legal threat from strict Texas abortion law
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
With such laws in place, if I would live in US there would be no place for people like me, not blue and not red (and partly blue and partly red on various topics). This is because none of the 2 sides are perfect and many people do not fall in one side. So what is the point?
This is a law in one state out of 50 so you have a decent choice of other options.
You don't seem to understand "precedent"
Re: Lyft, Uber lash out at legal threat from strict Texas abortion law
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
A non-profit sued it's way to SCOTUS a few years ago in defense of frogs. Absurd arguments both for and against standing are hardly new, and most don't have statutory authority behind them.
> A non-profit sued it's way to SCOTUS a few years ago in defense of frogs. Is a non-profit defending frogs meant to be self-evidently absurd?
For standing to sue? Yes
Why would a special interest group be able to sue to protect frogs, but another wouldn't be able to sue to protect unborn babies?