PROSECUTOR TO DROP CHARGES AGAINST TEXAS WOMAN OVER HER ABORTION

Then you dont think life begins at conception.

its just that simple.

 

Yes. Here's another example (not Kyle-related):

 

We've got a SCOTUS justice-in-waiting who can't even define the word "woman". There are blue-haired idiots stomping around the streets with signs that say "silence is violence" (because they've had far too little experience with both). Then there's the nonsense like media outlets calling mass arson 'fiery (but mostly peaceful) protests'. Californians want to ban the use of various gendered words and pronouns. Go ask the average Hispanic how he feels about being labeled "Latinx". Hint: they don't like it, but leftists don't care, because they'd happily destroy a long-standing aspect of Latino culture to serve their flavor-of-the-week political aims.

 

I agree with you that it was imposed by the SC. However, both parties have had full control of the government several times since then and have let that ruling stand. They've both had their chance to make a law, and they have both chosen to keep the wedge issue for their own nefarious reasons. That's how they do with any wedge issue that could easily be fixed. If they fix a wedge issue, then they can no longer count on donors pouring money on them to "fix (or prevent) the issue."

 

I think life begins with a fertilized egg cell. Those who interrupt its development should be punished. Abortion is murder in advance. It should never be allowed.

 

Your comment "The law doesn’t change because you’re baiting people into breaking it."

 

I don’t really care to examine your post history.

 

Actually, YOUR comment introduced the idea:

In today's litigious environment it's hard to imagine there won't be a lawsuit, But are we even sure this wasn't a setup to provoke just such a confrontation?

 

Even if I granted every point you just made, where is the real harm? You’re just talking about how people talk.
I’m starting to feel like you got called a racist recently and you’re still fuming.

 

Trying to link Vanilla OJ to the stupidity by Texass GQPers is a reach-around...

 

Glad I’m not the only one who had that takeaway. Feels like I’m taking crazy pills when I read some of these posts.

 

Responding to someone who suggested someone was baiting the law

 

You wouldn't be the only one. His objections have a certain slant, don't they?

 

No, it's tried and true gaslighting. Always call it out when you see it.

 

You can't see the harm if our legal system doesn't operate from standard definitions for words? If judges can just makes up definitions for whatever words they want, whenever they want? You can't see the harm in threatening people with fines and jail time for mislabeling a transgendered thing? The irony is that the same people who would scream bloody murder about the "un-personing" of calling someone who was born with a penis "he" if it wants to be called "she", and write volumes about the harm this does to the transgendered community, don't give two sh*ts about all the Hispanics that are offended by "Latinx".

LOL! No (or at least not that I'm aware of), but "you're a racist" (in all its endless variations and permutations) is such an over-used insult these days that it's lost all real significance. I don't really care who liberals think are racists anymore.

 

Words and their definitions, believe it or not, are social constructs. We decide what they mean. As a society finds utility in changing definitions it will make those changes. History is filled with words that have changed in exactly this way. I feel like people tend to think we are at the end of history, that the trends of the past won’t continue on today. It’s pretty silly.

Could you quote where in that law it says what you and the article claim. I’m interested in what lever biased take Fox News has come up with. Original source, please.

The Latinx thing is dumb and is at best a minor annoyance perpetrated by Liberals trying to be woke. Hardly a real world harm.

 

Is this asking about California's law?

 

I’m asking you to quote the relevant text from the law, then explain how it will do what you claim.

 

How would you punish artificial insemination places? They are the worst offenders.

 

And the countdown begins

 

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/...vision=2.&title=&part=&chapter=2.45.&article=

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/...division=2.&title=&part=&chapter=2.&article=4.

Do you need more explanation than that?

 

ARE WE ALL SCREAMING IN THIS THREAD OR JUST THE TITLE?

It seems the facts of this case are quite complex.

 

Just Phyxius (and the title)

 

No-- first off-- back up your contention that the Roe v. Wade "abortion rules... go directly against the wishes of majority of Texas voters." I just went to check some polls, because I knew that Roe has enjoyed longstanding popular support, and I found that you were incorrect, though not by as much as I would've thought.

Had you just said "Republican voters," you might well have been right, though it would have been a close call, either way, so your inference that the Dems are forcing something down Republican throats, is really a falsehood. However, because you said "Texas voters," and there are lots of Democrats in Texas*-- even though that can be easy to forget-- your statement was false. Here are two recent polls, the first by Gallup, in May of last year; the second, by PBS, this January (2022).

https://news.gallup.com/poll/350804/americans-opposed-overturning-roe-wade.aspx

[Snip]
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Nearly six in 10 Americans do not want Roe v. Wade overturned
Republicans are closely split on reversing the landmark decision
Bans on early-term abortions fall short of U.S. public support
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Gallup's latest update on U.S. abortion attitudes finds 58% of Americans opposed to overturning the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, while 32% are in favor. Since 1989, between 52% and 66% of U.S. adults have wanted to maintain the landmark abortion decision. Today's support roughly matches the average over that three-decade period...

On the question of Roe v. Wade, 46% of Republicans favor overturning it, while 43% are opposed.
[End]


https://www.wpr.org/poll-most-ameri...ng-roe-v-wade-split-new-abortion-restrictions

[Snip]

Among respondents to the poll who had an opinion on Roe v. Wade, 28 percent favored overturning the decision and 72 percent opposed it...

But public opinion does not appear to see upholding the Mississippi law as equivalent to overturning Roe. Forty-nine percent of respondents said they favor upholding the 15-week abortion ban, and 51 percent oppose it.
[End]

The Mississippi Law, as a reminder, reduced the threshold to 15 weeks. So what this shows us is that, if people voted on this, we would likely see the "age of viability," standard, which is typically 24 weeks, reduced to maybe 20 weeks or 18 weeks, but not have the abortion right completely abandoned, even by a majority of Republicans. IOW, the new Oklahoma bill, and * the current Texas law do not seem to be in accord with the views of "a majority of Texas voters," for sure, but not even with a majority of Republicans. If I were to guess, you might get a majority of Repubs on board for a 13- week cutoff, as it is in Germany, and some other European countries (or Mississippi's 15 weeks might even be the "sweet spot"). From Dems alone, it might be a close call between the current standard, or a 20 week standard (maybe they'd compromise at 22).

Personally, I have, for decades, believed that the halfway mark in a pregnancy, the end of the 20th week, would be the best place for the cutoff, so as to, while giving the woman time to both discover her condition, and then give serious, unpressured consideration to it, before deciding, still err on the safe side, with regard to the fetus, which would be rapidly approaching a point at which it would be recognizably human.

Though Pro-Choice advocates often make it seem that anything less than right up to the wall of viability, would be a hardship, that does not seem to be the case, looking at other first world nations. In fact, Canada is the only nation with no law against abortion, at any stage before birth and yet, 90% of its abortions occur by the end of the 12th or 13th week. And actually (though there is no law against having a late term abortion), for practical purposes, Canada follows the Roe standard because, beyond 23 weeks and 6 days, it will be very difficult finding any doctors to perform the abortion, without certification, according to their professional standard, of the mother meeting certain, exceptional circumstances.

But the long & the short of it is, if you support an 8-week cutoff-- as is the Texas civil law standard, which nevertheless led to a criminal charge against this Texas woman-- or less, then your view is against the majority of voters. So, will learning this lead you-- in conformity with the principle you've stated-- to adjust your advocacy to a limit which it seems a majority might support? Or, on the heels of criticizing others for forcing their views on the majority, will you do the hypocritical thing, and continue to push for your own personal idea of "what's right," and say the hell with everybody else?

 

Well, well, well...

SHE can use HER Google! Surely after such efforts, SHE wouldn't be offended by someone mixing up HER pronouns, would SHE?