If rights can be capriciously and arbitrarily curtailed by armed agents of the state while effete judges yeet sternly-worded letters into the void, then those "rights" are worth about as much as the USA's signature on an international treaty. Which is to say, nothing.
We want Texans to know their rights
61–70 of 104 posts
Re: We want Texans to know their rights
#62Re: We want Texans to know their rights
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
As someone that does, I disagree. Laws on this subject should exclusively apply to providers, with exceptions for medical necessity. There are too many harms that come from targeting individuals to be worthwhile.
Some would argue there are too many harms that occur if antiabortion measures aren't taken :(
Re: We want Texans to know their rights
#64"Last May, EFF reported that a sheriff’s office in Texas searched data from more than 83,000 automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras to track down a woman suspected of self-managing an abortion." These people really have nothing better to do?
[flagged]
The only reasons to entertain that perspective is their personal delusions which they ought not impose on others also when an act takes place in one jurisdiction wherein all actors are within that jurisdiction it is obviously nonsense to apply a different justifications laws to the act based on their residence.
Re: We want Texans to know their rights
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
lol got em boss Then we can persecute the sinners that have premarital sex, eat pork, curse, work on Sundays, operate machinery on Saturdays or any sort of other backwards hick shit these idiots believe. Why'd we not just let the Confederacy go?
[flagged]
You cum into a paper towel again and throw it away - is that murder?
Re: We want Texans to know their rights
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Wait you think there are so many exceptions for rape and incest because of the political power of the rape and incest lobby? Holy fuck. Even for someone who has quickly earned a name for himself and his insane takes, this is a strong entry. Bravo, ButlerianJihad!
Think of it this way:
Incest is not always consensual, and incest may be intra-family molestation or sexual abuse. In those cases, certainly the "rape exceptions" cover mothers who seek to abort their unborn children.
However, incest is not always non-consensual, such as between ordinary adults who just cross a "bright line boundary" and have a sexual affair that they may or may not regret. So is this why there are so many exceptions for "non-rape incest" abortions? Why, to avoid being exposed to shame or having, for example, siblings need to co-parent their rather illicit offspring that nobody will talk about? What's unique about "non-rape incest" that it requires its own carved-out exception that is so often baked into all the laws prohibiting other kinds of abortions?
Re: We want Texans to know their rights
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone that does, I disagree. Laws on this subject should exclusively apply to providers, with exceptions for medical necessity. There are too many harms that come from targeting individuals to be worthwhile.
Some would argue there are too many harms that occur if antiabortion measures aren't taken :(
Either argue the point or stop talking. This is a very hard position to take seriously, twee frowny face and all, if you’re willing to sell down the river the privacy of a largely vulnerable population because some sanctimonious humanism. :(
Re: We want Texans to know their rights
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Every minute spent tracking down a lady getting an abortion is a minute not spent tracking down a murderer or a rapist or similar.
As I said, the law is the problem. Since the law demands to track and investigate ladies suspected of destruction of embryos inside their own bodies, the police's direct job is to do just that, even to the detriment of other activities.
The police themselves may consider it stupid and counterproductive, but their opinion does not count until the next elections.
Re: We want Texans to know their rights
#69We had a lady down here in Estonia working for police. She used their extensive databases for non-work related reasons and got, very publicly, fired. She decided to appeal and lost. Through all levels of court up to the EU one. So for years, there would be a newspaper headline “remember that person who invaded your privacy? Still guilty”. Could not wish for a more impactful public execution.
Re: We want Texans to know their rights
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
lol got em boss Then we can persecute the sinners that have premarital sex, eat pork, curse, work on Sundays, operate machinery on Saturdays or any sort of other backwards hick shit these idiots believe. Why'd we not just let the Confederacy go?
[flagged]
A human is born, lives a life, ingests the wrong chemical and becomes brain-dead. Now you have a human that is alive, but the person who was that human is permanently gone. To avoid murder, are we obliged to keep the body alive as long as possible by all available means? I don’t expect you would think so. I expect you’d agree terminating the life of the human body is the preferable and not a great ethical quandary.
I would agree that at conception we have a human life. But, not that we have a human person. There are no thoughts, emotions, memories, hopes, dreams. There is a very strong potential for a person. But, at conception what makes a person is not there yet.
At some point in time between the human existing a single living cell and the human voting in elections and joining the military, a person develops. But, it’s not a definite transition point in time. It’s a gradient.
Unfortunately, for practical reasons, the law must pick a definite point in time. The consensus seems to be “around the time that the fetus can be kept alive and continue developing independent from the mother using current technology.” A practical choice, for sure.
One might argue that the official transition point should be a bit earlier. But, that’s not the core of the disagreement.
The core seems to be that some living people do not appear to take into consideration the difference between being alive vs. being a person.