Texan state legislature considering bill that would make abortion punishable by death

Scroll to see replies

With Roe in place, no-one will even be imprisoned, let alone prosecuted.

dont repeat that? lmao you think you're so smart, you must not know how US law works :laugh:

it's called amendment!!

A quick google will even show you that many states, regardless of your precious Roe v Wade, have amended/will amend. And will favour the bill :h:

i mean, do you think you're more educated about law than actual legislators???? That you knew about Roe v Wade and they didn't...??? :nothing:

or are you seriously speaking on an issue without gaining all the facts first about what the states are doing even if Roe v Wade is in place? :nothing:

Anyways US Law is all about balances and amendments, vetos, votes, mandates, etc. They are constantly changing, on paper, for the good or bad. :h:

ooop..looks like Arkansas and Louisiana are about to agree to AMEND as well :h:

and since countries take cue from USA, perhaps they will for this as well :h:

Reply 61

Trinculo

Original post by Bang Outta Order

dont repeat that? lmao you think you're so smart, you must not know how US law works :laugh:

it's called amendment!!

A quick google will even show you that many states, regardless of your precious Roe v Wade, have amended/will amend. And will favour the bill :h:

i mean, do you think you're more educated about law than actual legislators???? That you knew about Roe v Wade and they didn't...??? :nothing:

or are you seriously speaking on an issue without gaining all the facts first about what the states are doing even if Roe v Wade is in place? :nothing:

Anyways US Law is all about balances and amendments, vetos, votes, mandates, etc. They are constantly changing, on paper, for the good or bad. :h:

ooop..looks like Arkansas and Louisiana are about to agree to AMEND as well :h:

and since countries take cue from USA, perhaps they will for this as well :h:

I don't think you understand the significance of Roe v Wade, nor the background to it, nor why it is so controversial.

Reply 62

Bang Outta Order

@Trinculo anyways you can argue all day, it's in black and white that the constitution..can be amended :nothing:

and I've read two minutes ago literally the states that will do just that.

nighty...nighty...night :colone:

Reply 63

Trinculo

Original post by Bang Outta Order

@Trinculo anyways you can argue all day, it's in black and white that the constitution..can be amended :nothing:

and I've read two minutes ago literally the states that will do just that.

nighty...nighty...night :colone:

You don't understand what it is you are talking about.

Making an amdendment to the Constitution of the United States is significantly more difficult than reversing a case. There is currently no appetite to reverse Roe v Wade, and it is going further away from such action. The idea that there would be a Constitutional Amendment is utterly absurd.

The whole point of Roe is that the states are powerless to do anything about it. No-one wants to challenge it either, because there is so much to lose for all sides. Abortion is the EU of American politics. It divides the US just as deeply and totally as the EU divides UK politics. A challenge to Roe would be the equivalent of the EU referendum. No matter what happens, everyone is going to end up angry at some point.

Reply 64

Notoriety

Original post by Bang Outta Order

@Trinculo anyways you can argue all day, it's in black and white that the constitution..can be amended :nothing:

and I've read two minutes ago literally the states that will do just that.

nighty...nighty...night :colone:

Trinculo knows an awful lot about law. They're right.

Reply 65

Jebedee

Original post by SHallowvale

Except that we already have evidence that children/babies are not the same things as embryos or fetuses, yet you still believe that they are the same.

Throwing away a potentially poisoned glass of wine is nowhere near comparable to spending the next 9 months of your life carrying a unwanted pregnancy and, most likely, spending the next 10-15 years caring for someone you don't want to care for.

I didn't say they were the same thing. I just said they are both alive. To my knowledge your evidence doesn't cover this important fact.

Original post by snugglebear

In vitro fertilisation (IVF) uses human egg cells and sperm cells to create human embryos in a petri dish. A healthy embryo from these is then re-implanted into the woman's uterus - it's used for women who can't conceive naturally. The process discards human embryos it doesnt need/aren't useable or gives them to researchers to experiment on like for stem cell research. They are discarded after the experiments. Stem cell research is used to rebuild nerves. Pro-life people can be against IVF and stem cell research because they believe a human embryo is a human being and shouldn't be tampered with or discarded.

I guess I will need to think about my position on that.

Reply 66

SHallowvale

Original post by Jebedee

I didn't say they were the same thing. I just said they are both alive. To my knowledge your evidence doesn't cover this important fact.

You said that raising what you create should be the only option because "it doesn't involve the murdering of a child". So yes, you did say that a developing fetus/embryo is a child.

What do you mean by "alive" and why do you think they are?

Reply 67

SHallowvale

Original post by Bang Outta Order

Then you shouldn't have had unprotected sex. As for people who say "what about rape!" welp most pregnancies don't happen from rape and most sexual assaults in the USA and most of the western world :colonhash:

aren't forced sex. So the argument that "what if she's carrying her rapist's child-and therefore, abortion is right!" is ridiculous.

Unwanted pregnancies can still happen even if you have protected sex, just like how car crashes can still happen even if people are driving safely.

Even if it is rare, a women who conceives through rape should not have to carry that pregnancy.

Reply 68

QE2

Original post by Nasir.

Where's George Clooney now?

According to my binoculars, in his bathroom.

Reply 69

QE2

Original post by Jebedee

Are you against the death penalty for murderers also? The intention is that a murderer can potentially murder an unlimited amount of people in their lifetime and by killing them, the death toll is capped at one.

Anyone can potentially be a mass murderer with no prior warning of their intentions - so by your logic we should kill everyone at birth.

And you're wrong. Full life imprisonment would do the same. The death penalty is purely about vengeance.

Reply 70

QE2

Original post by Jebedee

I'm talking from a moral standpoint not legal. No one really knows when a human comes to be, and as we are talking about life, the logical choice is to err on the side of caution and assume that life begins at conception until we know otherwise.

That is merely your subjective opinion, an assertion based on a partisan view and therefore no more "morally" valid that the current legal position.

So abortions being allowed up to a certain time limit is not only morally acceptable but also legally acceptable - something your position lacks.

Reply 71

QE2

Original post by AJ126

We don't say oh she'll grow up to be a young woman so it's not child abuse.

Like your thinking but a better analogy would be arresting a driver for speeding while he is sitting at a red light, because his car is capable of doing 100mph.

We don't say oh it's not theft because he was going to give it back.

That is actually a legitimate defence because the legal definition of theft requires the "intention to permanently deprive".

Reply 72

QE2

Original post by Jebedee

Unless you can pinpoint the exact moment it becomes a human, in lieu of any biological academic accreditations, the logical choice is to assume it starts at the earliest point.

Unless you define "human", your argument is meaningless.

Reply 73

QE2

Original post by That'sGreat

I think you are purposefully excluding the idea of an innocent life vs that of a (if the law is passed) would be criminal. If the law was passed, you are legally ending an innocent life, which would be equivalent to murder.

How does this affect the "sanctity of life" argument?

Reply 74

QE2

Original post by yankeedog1953

Abortion as birth control is barbaric.

And forcing a woman to carry an unintended fetus to term, only to have it adopted or taken into care is less barbaric?
If the future of the unborn child was really your concern, you wouldn't take the chance of them becoming yet another statistic in the cycle of institutional neglect and abuse.
A termination at under 24 weeks is a far more merciful and compassionate.

Reply 75

QE2

Original post by AJ126

No because that's not the earliest point is it? You can go back further and say it's sperm or an egg.In which case its murder every time a guy masturbates. Plainly that's nonsense.

Not according to Jesus.

Reply 76

QE2

Original post by Jebedee

Interesting how the fact I'm advocating here for more personal responsibility, doesn't even register with you.

So you think that making drugs illegal stopped people from taking them?
The only real difference that legalising abortion made was that fewer women die from botched illegal abortions.

Reply 77

QE2

Original post by Bang Outta Order

@Trinculo anyways you can argue all day, it's in black and white that the constitution..can be amended :nothing:

and I've read two minutes ago literally the states that will do just that.

nighty...nighty...night :colone:

1. Individual states cannot amend the constitution.
2. The supremacy clause determines that federal law trumps (scuse the pun) state law.

Reply 78

Jebedee

Original post by SHallowvale

Maybe it's pedant word play but they are not the same thing ,as they are in different stages of development. Saying they are not the same is useless unless you qualify which characterise are different.

Who can say what qualifies as alive?

Original post by QE2

Wrong. Convicted killers have by definition been proven to be so. Killing everyone would include people with no intention to kill.

Life imprisonment is an unnecessary expense, so I support the death penalty. I don't see it as revenge, but keeping society safe.

Original post by QE2

If you say so. If we applied the logic to any other situation I'm sure most would agree. Refraining from taking an action with permanent effect, without knowing the full ramifications... Is a logical and moral action. Feel free to disagree as I'm certain you will.

Original post by QE2

So you think that making drugs illegal stopped people from taking them?
The only real difference that legalising abortion made was that fewer women die from botched illegal abortions.

That makes them criminals. I'm not overly hot on hearing the gripes of criminals.

Reply 79

QE2

Original post by Jebedee

Who can say what qualifies as alive?

The law.

Wrong. Convicted killers have by definition been proven to be so. Killing everyone would include people with no intention to kill.

But just because they have killed once doesn't mean that they will kill again.
Likewise just because someone hasn't killed doesn't mean that they won't. Every murderer was once not a murderer.

Life imprisonment is an unnecessary expense, so I support the death penalty. I don't see it as revenge, but keeping society safe.