Anyone else watching this? [W:500]

[davidtaylorjr]

Yes...very "really".

How so?

 

[Removable Mind]

How so?

You always make women responsible for conception...ALWAY in every argument.

 

[Removable Mind]

The bill has overwhelming support from the representatives of the people, does it not? We voted for those people for a reason and they are doing our work. I'm proud of my state rep and his resolve in this regard.

You made a claim...and now your asking me question to back up your claim. But thats common for you.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

You always make women responsible for conception...ALWAY in every argument.

That is not true, actually. But the majority of them, yes they are equally responsible with their partner. In the majority of cases it was consent for sex by both parties, therefore the woman's responsibility as much as the man. That is in no way sexist, that is fact.

 

[Carjosse]

If I was to support a cut-off date for abortion it would be the third trimester, I'm glad my country struck down abortion laws and parliament refuses to pass new ones even my Conservative MP voted it down.

 

[nota bene]

Abortion needs to be banned. And women need to learn to take responsibility for their sexual actions.

Women don't conceive on their own. Men need to take responsibility too.

 

[JayDubya]

You made a claim...and now your asking me question to back up your claim. But thats common for you.

No, I'm expecting you to know basic facts before you mouth off. I know for a fact now that you don't know them, but the expectation is still there whether you fail to meet it or not, as a valid basis for criticism.


The answer to that rhetorical question is that yes, we saw votes occur and yes, this bill has overwhelming support in both the Texas House and the Texas Senate. It did not only pass such a vote, it handily passed. It cannot be signed due to some rowdy Austinite thugs but hey, second time's the charm.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Women don't conceive on their own. Men need to take responsibility too.

Last time I check the woman was the one who decides to have the abortion.

 

[Removable Mind]

That is not true, actually. But the majority of them, yes they are equally responsible with their partner. In the majority of cases it was consent for sex by both parties, therefore the woman's responsibility as much as the man. That is in no way sexist, that is fact.

YOU MADE A SEXIST REMARK...claiming women are responsible. That's is factually impossible.

 

[Removable Mind]

No, I'm expecting you to know basic facts before you mouth off. I know for a fact now that you don't know them, but the expectation is still there whether you fail to meet it or not, as a valid basis for criticism.

The answer is that yes, we saw votes occur and yes, this bill has overwhelming support in both the Texas House and the Texas Senate. It did not only pass such a vote, it handily passed.

More double talk from you Jay...WE ARE DONE.

 

[JayDubya]

More double talk from you Jay...WE ARE DONE.

WHAT DOUBLE TALK?

You asked a question, it got a direct answer - the representatives and senators of this state are chosen from the people to vote on matters, they overwhelmingly voted in favor of this bill, and that's a fact.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

YOU MADE A SEXIST REMARK...claiming women are responsible. That's is factually impossible.

They are responsible just as much as a man. And I said they need to take responsibility for their sexual choices. Let's get the facts straight. Are you suggesting women don't make a choice to have sex?

 

[nota bene]

Last time I check the woman was the one who decides to have the abortion.

I really don't want to divert the thread, but lack of support from their partners is one significant reason women seek abortions--48%, in fact. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf

 

[nota bene]

They are responsible just as much as a man. And I said they need to take responsibility for their sexual choices. Let's get the facts straight. Are you suggesting women don't make a choice to have sex?

I wouldn't want to sound old-fashioned and suggest that people who have sex should discuss the role of children in their relationship in advance, much less marrying first and then having children. Prehistoric view, I know.

But here's what any man can do: (1) Keep it wrapped. (2) Take responsibility in every way for the child he has co-created.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

I wouldn't want to sound old-fashioned and suggest that people who have sex should discuss the role of children in their relationship in advance, much less marrying first and then having children. Prehistoric view, I know.

But here's what any man can do: (1) Keep it wrapped. (2) Take responsibility in every way for the child he has co-created.

Not a prehistoric view, that is the right view. Anyways, Not suggesting men are not responsible, but when talking about abortion they call it "women's rights" It's a bunch of hogwash.

 

[Gina]

I'm all about tremendously reducing the number of abortions.

So am I and the pro-choice movement.

Abortion should not only be safe and legal, it should be rare.

BILL CLINTON, speech at DNC, Aug. 29, 1996

I am not about endangering the lives of women.

 

[JayDubya]

I wouldn't want to sound old-fashioned and suggest that people who have sex should discuss the role of children in their relationship in advance, much less marrying first and then having children. Prehistoric view, I know.

But here's what any man can do: (1) Keep it wrapped. (2) Take responsibility in every way for the child he has co-created.

Not a prehistoric view, that is the right view. Anyways, Not suggesting men are not responsible, but when talking about abortion they call it "women's rights" It's a bunch of hogwash.

Just my $0.02.

I'm pretty sure you guys agree on substance but you're caught in arguing semantics.

David, I assume you agree that both parents are responsible for creating a kid; I assume you also believe the status quo where upon one parent can unilaterally kill their kid is horrifically inappropriate; I'm quite sure nota would agree.


Nota is correcting your language, yes, but there's a benefit to heeding such advice - don't give people like RM around here ammunition, because if you give them an inch, they will take a mile - put another way, by even remotely or possibly suggesting a disproportionate responsibility for pregnancy on one gender, some of them will quite literally compare you to a rapist.

 

[JayDubya]

So am I and the pro-choice movement.



I am not about endangering the lives of women.

I'm not buying what you're selling here, and no one else should either. Fitting enough that you chose to quote good ol' "Slick Willie."

Let this be a lesson to all.

Never, ever let them lie to your face with that "safe, legal, and rare" bull****. They just care about the "legal" part, which is the main point of contention, and then they throw in those other two in a halfhearted attempt to pretend to be reasonable. They don't care about rare, and after last night, they clearly don't care about safe.

 

[Gina]

I'm not buying what you're selling here, and no one else should either. Fitting enough that you chose to quote good ol' "Slick Willie."

That is up to you. It is as I said.

 

[JayDubya]

That is up to you. It is as I said.

We will never agree with you about legality, but this bill would ensure safety and rarity. Furthermore, it does not make it illegal.

Therefore, we know the truth: opposition to the bill is the promotion of quantity and the opposition to safety. Abortion proponents shot themselves in the foot on that one. That false talking point is dead and buried, now.

 

[minnie616]

... Anyways, Not suggesting men are not responsible, but when talking about abortion they call it "women's rights" It's a bunch of hogwash.

Abortion really should NOT be described as a woman's right.
It is included in our (men's and women's ) "zone of privacy" .

In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Harry Blackmun (who was chosen because of his prior experience as counsel to the Mayo Clinic), the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy.
The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws and cited past cases ruling that marriage, contraception, and child rearing are activities covered in this "zone of privacy." The Court then argued that the "zone of privacy" was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."
This decision involved myriad physical, psychological, and economic stresses a pregnant woman must face.
Because abortions lie within a pregnant woman's "zone of privacy," the abortion decision "and its effectuation" are fundamental rights that are protected by the Constitution from regulation by the states, so laws regulating abortion must be sufficiently "important."

The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Roe v. Wade (1973) | PBS

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Thank you for providing an example of what sort of barbarity we need to progress from.

There is nothing barbaric about killing entities who abilities are like that of an ordinary animal which we kill quite a bit on a frequent basis which includes the unborn.

It isn't until some years of develop when humans have the necessary mental capabilities to support rationality and abstract/vertical thinking do they then have a serious case for the right to life

 

[Gina]

We will never agree with you about legality, but this bill would ensure safety and rarity. Furthermore, it does not make it illegal.

Therefore, we know the truth: opposition to the bill is the promotion of quantity and the opposition to safety. Abortion proponents shot themselves in the foot on that one. That false talking point is dead and buried, now.

Our methods and purposes are different. I want to make abortion rare by preventing unplanned pregnancy. This law just eliminates abortion under the guise of safety. Abortion procedures are already safe in the state of Texas. If they weren't, there would be injured or dead women on which to base this law. But there isn't. This law is a pretense and supposes a danger that does not exist.

The legislation would have prohibited abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, regulated first-trimester abortion clinics as ambulatory surgical centers and restricted access to medication abortions. Had it passed, nearly all of the clinics in the state would have been shuttered.

 

[VanceMack]

So am I and the pro-choice movement.



I am not about endangering the lives of women.

Why? I dont think I understand that response ANY time it is given. Why are you interested in tremendously reducing the number of abortions?

 

[JayDubya]

Our methods and purposes are different. I want to make abortion rare by preventing unplanned pregnancy.

People can already buy products that do that. Literally no one is saying otherwise.

This law just eliminates abortion under the guise of safety.

No, it doesn't eliminate abortion. It will certainly reduce it and make sure it is quite safe.

Abortion procedures are already safe in the state of Texas.

And yet I heard we have a Gosnell wannabe in the mix in Houston.