RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


LookieNoNookie -> RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas (6/28/2013 5:07:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

A Democratic state senator is filibustering a draconian anti abortion law.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2Q8Hr0O20LY

She has to last for 13 hours without drinking, sitting, leaning on anything and she must not stop speaking.



I hate abortion.

(Let the flames begin).

It's just as much the mans child as it is hers.




tazzygirl -> RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas (6/28/2013 5:12:09 PM)

When he carries it and takes on all the responsibilities as well as all the risks, I will agree with you.




DomKen -> RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas (6/28/2013 5:13:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Rehnquist made a number of points:

1. At the time of the passing of the 14th amendment, there were laws against abortion in every one of the 36 states. Yet there were no applications of law in this area. The only conclusion possible was that the drafters did not intend to have the 14th amendment withdraw from the states the power to legislate abortion.

Nonsense. At the time the 14th amendment was passed segregation was the law in every state in the union. Clearly that is not a persuasive argument against Brown v Board and it is not against Roe either


quote:

2. Rehnquist said it brilliantly. ""But that liberty is not guaranteed absolutely against deprivation, only against deprivation without due process of law. The test traditionally applied in the area of social and economic legislation is whether or not a law such as that challenged has a rational relation to a valid state objective.

And what state objective is served by killing women? The facts are quite clear, legal or illegal women will seek abortions and when it is illegal a lot of them will die or be seriously injured in the process.


quote:

4. Conversely, contrary to usual practice, in Roe V Wade the court required Texas to the strict scrutiny standard. In other words, the state had to prove that its laws were necessary to accomplish a compelling state interest.[\quote]
The majority determined that the right to privacy was worthy of only being violated by the stricter standard. the same applies to the ruling in Brown.




LookieNoNookie -> RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas (6/28/2013 5:16:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

When he carries it and takes on all the responsibilities as well as all the risks, I will agree with you.


When she pays for college and every other aspect for 30 years, has her wages usurped by draconian math, when she lives in a station wagon until the child is 26 because she has a penis....I will agree with you.

Until then...and until Judges put the onus of financial responsibility entirely on both sides equally....when it's truly equal....I'll vote right alongside of you.




DomKen -> RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas (6/28/2013 5:18:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

When he carries it and takes on all the responsibilities as well as all the risks, I will agree with you.


When she pays for college and every other aspect for 30 years, has her wages usurped by draconian math....I will agree with you.

If she turns a baby over to the father she will.




LookieNoNookie -> RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas (6/28/2013 5:21:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

When he carries it and takes on all the responsibilities as well as all the risks, I will agree with you.


When she pays for college and every other aspect for 30 years, has her wages usurped by draconian math....I will agree with you.

If she turns a baby over to the father she will.


Wrong. Turning the child over to the father only minimizes the checks. It doesn't stop them.




Lucylastic -> RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas (6/28/2013 5:22:45 PM)

Typical that it only comes down to the money
If only it was more than financial responsibility you had to feel nookie....




tazzygirl -> RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas (6/28/2013 5:25:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

When he carries it and takes on all the responsibilities as well as all the risks, I will agree with you.


When she pays for college and every other aspect for 30 years, has her wages usurped by draconian math, when she lives in a station wagon until the child is 26 because she has a penis....I will agree with you.

Until then...and until Judges put the onus of financial responsibility entirely on both sides equally....when it's truly equal....I'll vote right alongside of you.


I didnt ask for, or get, child support, help with education, medical expenses.. yadda yadda yadda... it was all on me. So, yeah, I can say what i did.




Phydeaux -> RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas (6/28/2013 5:45:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Rehnquist made a number of points:

1. At the time of the passing of the 14th amendment, there were laws against abortion in every one of the 36 states. Yet there were no applications of law in this area. The only conclusion possible was that the drafters did not intend to have the 14th amendment withdraw from the states the power to legislate abortion.

Nonsense. At the time the 14th amendment was passed segregation was the law in every state in the union. Clearly that is not a persuasive argument against Brown v Board and it is not against Roe either


Man how can you be so willfully obtuse.

Brown v Board people at least made legal claim that segration was right or wrong under the 14th amendment. And this happened reasonably close to passage.

No one made advanced a claim that due process was a basis for privacy let alone abortion until 1923. (Meyer v Nebraska).


quote:

2. Rehnquist said it brilliantly. ""But that liberty is not guaranteed absolutely against deprivation, only against deprivation without due process of law. The test traditionally applied in the area of social and economic legislation is whether or not a law such as that challenged has a rational relation to a valid state objective.
And what state objective is served by killing women? The facts are quite clear, legal or illegal women will seek abortions and when it is illegal a lot of them will die or be seriously injured in the process.


The state has no object in killing women and the purpose of abortions laws is not to cause the death of women. This doesn't pass a rational relations test. Or common sense.






Phydeaux -> RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas (6/28/2013 5:51:48 PM)


quote:

Why hasnt science come up with a better solution for birth control, yet poured millions into Viagra.

Just a wee bit hypocritical, dont you think?


Uh.. because you can't legislate scientific advancement any more than you can morality. We're going to invent perpetual energy today, boys and girls!
Uh, because its easier kill/prevent the implantation of one egg/etc than it is billions of sperm
Uh because people cant see any see any economic incentive in any available technologies. Ie., stepwise improvements probably aren't profitable.

So, no I see no hypocrisy in it at all.


So because something is easier its better?


Not at all. But harder has a great deal to do with *possible or Impossible*


Why does my morality trump.

It doesn't. This isn't a question of morality but legality. More properly, its a question of what actions by the texas legislature or the courts are legal.




tazzygirl -> RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas (6/28/2013 6:12:17 PM)

quote:

Not at all. But harder has a great deal to do with *possible or Impossible*


Why does my morality trump.

It doesn't. This isn't a question of morality but legality. More properly, its a question of what actions by the texas legislature or the courts are legal.


And other states have tried it and failed... this isnt JUST about Texas, but the pervasive attitude of morality on this issue into everyones' lives. If they were basing their laws on science, I would have no issue with their desires. They arent. Its based upon deliberate misinformation and the attitude that "I cannot condone abortion, therefore it shold not be legal". hell, I dont condone marijuana use, but I do see its use for those who need it medically. I dont condone the death penalty, but I see its use in society.

There are many things in law that I find morally repugnant, but I can see the benefits for society. The fact that those who are morally outraged about abortion, yet they cannot see the benefits to society are the one's who kill me the most. They latch on to the most recent tinfoil hate theory (aka Texas) and they run with it.




dcnovice -> RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas (6/28/2013 7:04:15 PM)

quote:

Here is an exegesis on William Rehnquist's (Chief Justice of the United States) dissent on relating to privacy. Please read it. Rehnquists writing is even better but..

Maybe after I finish with the DOMA rulings. Meantime, two questions:

(a) If Rehnquist's points were so compelling, why did they fail to persuade seven of his peers? Three of the Nixon four were in the majority, including Chief Justice Burger, whom Nixon had chosen specifically to undue the work of the Warren Court.

(b) Rehnquist appears, at least in the summary to which you linked, to focus (as Blackmun had) on the 14th Amendment. How does that answer my question about the 9th?

quote:

Roe v Wade froze the debate.

How did it freeze debate? People have argued fiercely since the day it was handed down, and legislators in various states have beavered away, with no small success, at eroding Roe and/or erecting obstacles for women seeking to obtain a legal medical procedure.

quote:

And it deprived us the opportunity to form a consensus around what are our privacy rights.

Brown v. Board of Education deprived us of "the opportunity to form a consensus" about school desegregation. Was that wrong? Given that Brown (1954) overturned Plessy (1896), it's not like the justices rushed. How long do we wait for "consensus"? Some places might still have segregated schools if the Supremes hadn't acted.




DomKen -> RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas (6/28/2013 8:58:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

When he carries it and takes on all the responsibilities as well as all the risks, I will agree with you.


When she pays for college and every other aspect for 30 years, has her wages usurped by draconian math....I will agree with you.

If she turns a baby over to the father she will.


Wrong. Turning the child over to the father only minimizes the checks. It doesn't stop them.

Wrong. The father can seek child support from the mother if the child is in his care.




tazzygirl -> RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas (6/28/2013 9:00:16 PM)

Im still trying to figure out just how it only "minimizes" those checks. Women dont get child support if the child is not in their care.




DomKen -> RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas (6/28/2013 9:01:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Rehnquist made a number of points:

1. At the time of the passing of the 14th amendment, there were laws against abortion in every one of the 36 states. Yet there were no applications of law in this area. The only conclusion possible was that the drafters did not intend to have the 14th amendment withdraw from the states the power to legislate abortion.

Nonsense. At the time the 14th amendment was passed segregation was the law in every state in the union. Clearly that is not a persuasive argument against Brown v Board and it is not against Roe either


Man how can you be so willfully obtuse.

Brown v Board people at least made legal claim that segration was right or wrong under the 14th amendment. And this happened reasonably close to passage.

No one made advanced a claim that due process was a basis for privacy let alone abortion until 1923. (Meyer v Nebraska).

Brown v Board was in 1954


quote:

quote:

2. Rehnquist said it brilliantly. ""But that liberty is not guaranteed absolutely against deprivation, only against deprivation without due process of law. The test traditionally applied in the area of social and economic legislation is whether or not a law such as that challenged has a rational relation to a valid state objective.
And what state objective is served by killing women? The facts are quite clear, legal or illegal women will seek abortions and when it is illegal a lot of them will die or be seriously injured in the process.


The state has no object in killing women and the purpose of abortions laws is not to cause the death of women. This doesn't pass a rational relations test. Or common sense.

The facts differ from your fantasy. If you outlaw abortions you will simply kill more women. There will not be a substantial increase in the number of pregnancies that go to term.




tazzygirl -> RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas (6/28/2013 9:45:14 PM)

quote:

The state has no object in killing women and the purpose of abortions laws is not to cause the death of women.


And yet that is exactly what will happen.

Lets have a history lesson.

The Supreme Court did not "invent" legal abortion, much less abortion itself, when it handed down its historic Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. Abortion, both legal and illegal, had long been part of life in America. Indeed, the legal status of abortion has passed through several distinct phases in American history. Generally permitted at the nation's founding and for several decades thereafter, the procedure was made illegal under most circumstances in most states beginning in the mid-1800s. In the 1960s, states began reforming their strict antiabortion laws, so that when the Supreme Court made abortion legal nationwide, legal abortions were already available in 17 states under a range of circumstances beyond those necessary to save a woman's life

.........

Illegal Abortions Were Common
Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. One analysis, extrapolating from data from North Carolina, concluded that an estimated 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967.

One stark indication of the prevalence of illegal abortion was the death toll. In 1930, abortion was listed as the official cause of death for almost 2,700 women—nearly one-fifth (18%) of maternal deaths recorded in that year. The death toll had declined to just under 1,700 by 1940, and to just over 300 by 1950 (most likely because of the introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s, which permitted more effective treatment of the infections that frequently developed after illegal abortion). By 1965, the number of deaths due to illegal abortion had fallen to just under 200, but illegal abortion still accounted for 17% of all deaths attributed to pregnancy and childbirth that year. And these are just the number that were officially reported; the actual number was likely much higher.

Poor women and their families were disproportionately impacted. A study of low-income women in New York City in the 1960s found that almost one in 10 (8%) had ever attempted to terminate a pregnancy by illegal abortion; almost four in 10 (38%) said that a friend, relative or acquaintance had attempted to obtain an abortion. Of the low-income women in that study who said they had had an abortion, eight in 10 (77%) said that they had attempted a self-induced procedure, with only 2% saying that a physician had been involved in any way.

These women paid a steep price for illegal procedures. In 1962 alone, nearly 1,600 women were admitted to Harlem Hospital Center in New York City for incomplete abortions, which was one abortion-related hospital admission for every 42 deliveries at that hospital that year. In 1968, the University of Southern California Los Angeles County Medical Center, another large public facility serving primarily indigent patients, admitted 701 women with septic abortions, one admission for every 14 deliveries.

A clear racial disparity is evident in the data of mortality because of illegal abortion: In New York City in the early 1960s, one in four childbirth-related deaths among white women was due to abortion; in comparison, abortion accounted for one in two childbirth-related deaths among nonwhite and Puerto Rican women.

Even in the early 1970s, when abortion was legal in some states, a legal abortion was simply out of reach for many. Minority women suffered the most: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that in 1972 alone, 130,000 women obtained illegal or self-induced procedures, 39 of whom died. Furthermore, from 1972 to 1974, the mortality rate due to illegal abortion for nonwhite women was 12 times that for white women.



http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060108.html



It continues, and I do invite you to read the rest.

Abortion Mortality
The number of deaths from abortion has declined dramatically since Roe v. Wade.

[image]http://www.guttmacher.org/graphics/gr0601/gr060108c2.gif[/image]

Early Abortions
Since Roe v. Wade, a greater proportion of women who have an abortion have done so early in pregnancy.

[image]http://www.guttmacher.org/graphics/gr0601/gr060108c3.gif[/image]

Should the Supreme Court overturn Roe and return the fundamental question of abortion's legality to the states, NARAL Pro-Choice America estimates that abortion could be made illegal in 17 states. In that light, the years before Roe offer something of a cautionary tale. Granted, it is by no means a given that the precise dimensions of the public health situation that existed before 1973 would reappear. However, it must be considered extremely likely that such an overhaul of U.S. abortion jurisprudence would lead to the reestablishment of a two-tiered system in which options available to a woman confronting an unintended pregnancy would be largely determined by her socioeconomic status. Such a system has proved to be deleterious to the health of women, especially those who are disadvantaged, and is something that many had hoped would have been long consigned to the history books.

So we go back to a system of haves and have nots. Its that way today.. but at least its a reasonably priced system.

Women will die with illegal abortions.




tweakabelle -> RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas (6/29/2013 8:08:28 PM)

quote:

Phydeaux

quote:

tazzygirl

When does your morality stop interfering in my life?


Strawman.



Cop-out. What a cowardly post!




tazzygirl -> RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas (6/29/2013 9:15:09 PM)

Its the fall back position when they realize they are wrong.




DarqueMirror -> RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas (7/1/2013 10:50:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
I didnt ask for, or get, child support, help with education, medical expenses.. yadda yadda yadda... it was all on me. So, yeah, I can say what i did.


Key words -- "ask for." The truth is, had you asked, you'd have gotten the support, even if the guy was not the child's father.

And later, if the guy proved the child was not his, you wouldn't even be charged with fraud or perjury for claiming it was and costing him a shitload of money.




DomKen -> RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas (7/1/2013 11:31:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DarqueMirror

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
I didnt ask for, or get, child support, help with education, medical expenses.. yadda yadda yadda... it was all on me. So, yeah, I can say what i did.


Key words -- "ask for." The truth is, had you asked, you'd have gotten the support, even if the guy was not the child's father.

And later, if the guy proved the child was not his, you wouldn't even be charged with fraud or perjury for claiming it was and costing him a shitload of money.

What planet are you from? If you doubt paternity you can always seek a genetic test. They're not terribly expensive nor are they invasive, a cheek swab, so any mother refusing to let you get the test is going to have a hard time explaining that to a judge.
https://www.homedna.com/products.html?gclid=CMuo7LuXkLgCFSJlMgodeVkAdg
looks like just over $100 for the full test.




Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.736328E-02