• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

DA moves to dismiss a murder charge against a Texas woman accused of a self-induced abortion

Banning abortion and prosecuting those who engage in it is an exercise of secular and not religious power

Only if there's a 'secular' reason and I havent heard one yet, at least not one that justifies violating women's Const rights like due process and bodily autonomy and essentially, forcing women to remain pregnant against our will...for no justifiable reason.

It would be 'nice' if all pregnant women had only wanted and healthy pregnancies, but that's not the case. So that's why women get to choose. They are the only persons who know their circumstances and needs, and their continued ability to uphold their responsibilities and obligations to others.
 
Only if there's a 'secular' reason and I havent heard one yet, at least not one that justifies violating women's Const rights like due process and bodily autonomy and essentially, forcing women to remain pregnant against our will...for no justifiable reason.

It would be 'nice' if all pregnant women had only wanted and healthy pregnancies, but that's not the case. So that's why women get to choose. They are the only persons who know their circumstances and needs, and their continued ability to uphold their responsibilities and obligations to others.
A secular reason could be as little as “because we the legislature say so”

What you mean is there is no secular reason you will ever accept.
 
Okay, that's the best argument I've seen for focusing on Wyoming. You'd still have to convince liberals to move to Wyoming, though. That's a tough sell.
Pay me enough and I'd do it
 
A secular reason could be as little as “because we the legislature say so”

What you mean is there is no secular reason you will ever accept.

No, that's not a reason. If you have a 'secular' reason that you think is justifiable...let's see it.

Instead of your current answer of 'na huh.'
 
I’m probably biased. Of all the right wing states, Florida offers the most layers of diversity that would keep me engaged. I haven’t seen anything of Texas that would really do it for me, though I personally know people who’ve left Ca to buy a home there. California is great, but the draw of home ownership is strong and if you’re not rich then that’s going to eat into you eventually.

Texas has football, trucks, and damn good Tex-Mex.
 
No, that's not a reason. If you have a 'secular' reason that you think is justifiable...let's see it.

Instead of your current answer of 'na huh.'
You don't need to be religious to be against abortion.

But that's different than creating laws banning it
 
No, that's not a reason. If you have a 'secular' reason that you think is justifiable...let's see it.

Instead of your current answer of 'na huh.
“Because the legislature says so” is a justifiable answer in an alleged representative democracy.
 
You don't need to be religious to be against abortion.

But that's different than creating laws banning it
There is no difference really. If abortion is murder you cannot morally support it being legal.
 
“Because the legislature says so” is a justifiable answer in an alleged representative democracy.

No it's not. You just know there isnt one. So you repeat your 'na huh.'

So another failure from you.
 
There is no difference really. If abortion is murder you cannot morally support it being legal.

It's a good thing it's not murder then.

And not even all religions believe it is. Some Christian sects and Judaism dont believe it's so, that the soul isnt there until birth.

Not only that, the pain, suffering and actual harm to the mother need to be weighed with it...and the unborn suffers nothing. It's immoral to intentionally force pain and suffering on another.

Some people value quality of life over quantity. Not just more hands born to put $$ into Sunday collection plates.
 
It's a good thing it's not murder then.

And not even all religions believe it is. Some Christian sects and Judaism dont believe it's so, that the soul isnt there until birth.

Not only that, the pain, suffering and actual harm to the mother need to be weighed with it...and the unborn suffers nothing. It's immoral to intentionally force pain and suffering on another.

Some people value quality of life over quantity. Not just more hands born to put $$ into Sunday collection plates.
Lol, now you’re arguing religious doctrine and purported disagreements (really there is no disagreement, abortion is murder under christian principles and anyone who tries to argue it’s not is simply wrong or self deluded) about it is the basis for abortion not being murder.

Your fringe theocratic views should not be the basis for public policy
 
Last edited:
I’m probably biased. Of all the right wing states, Florida offers the most layers of diversity that would keep me engaged. I haven’t seen anything of Texas that would really do it for me, though I personally know people who’ve left Ca to buy a home there. California is great, but the draw of home ownership is strong and if you’re not rich then that’s going to eat into you eventually.
And also Florida is more strongly right wing than Texas and has a good strong Governor
 
The DA has dropped the charges, so they knew from the start this was an illegal arrest. Right?
Not necessarily. The police made the arrest based on what the law says. The DA ultimately in most jurisdictions decides if a case is pursued or not. His decision not to file charges could be based on a lack of evidence, new information, or just the likelihood of not securing a conviction in front of a jury. That being said, many jurisdictions have grand juries in place to either override a DA's lack of willingness to prosecute, or bring a charge where no previous charge was ever initiated.

The law in Texas which the people of Texas put into place is very clear. The police are not wrong for actually making arrests and then the process goes on from there. If the DA is avoiding prosecution because that is his personal political stand on this, then the process allows for voters to recall that elected official, or replace him in the next election.

Evidence suggests that the woman did an illegal self abortion in a state which does not allow it at that stage of fetal development. Roe V Wade actually allows states to at some point protect a fetus, so why are people upset about that?
 
Lol, now you’re arguing religious doctrine and purported disagreements (really there is no disagreement, abortion is murder under christian principles and anyone who tries to argue it’s not is simply wrong or self deluded) about it is the basis for abortion not being murder.

Your fringe theocratic views should not be the basis for public policy

Wrong and @minnie616 has sourced you're wrong about some Christian sects and Jews many times

But anytime you want to get back to providing a justifiable 'secular' reason, that would be great. Obviously, 'morality' isnt it.
 
Wrong and @minnie616 has sourced you're wrong about some Christian sects
any Christian sect that promotes abortion is theologically wrong. Minnie is a pro-baby murder activists who wants to pretend.
and Jews many times
Now you want a Jewish theocracy?
But anytime you want to get back to providing a justifiable 'secular' reason, that would be great. Obviously, 'morality' isnt it.
I already gave one, if the legislative authorities determine the action should be a crime then it should be one.
 
any Christian sect that promotes abortion is theologically wrong. Minnie is a pro-baby murder activists who wants to pretend.
Please, the RCC invented Popes and then had to invent ex Cathedra to control him.

Popes are theologically wrong.

Now you want a Jewish theocracy?

WHy do you lie? You know I dont believe in theocracy, they are a denial of God's Will, He who gave us all the free will to follow Him or not.

And believing that abortion is not murder has nothing to do with anything Jewish, it's just where, as with Christianity, there are overlaps in common moralities.

I already gave one, if the legislative authorities determine the action should be a crime then it should be one.

The legislative authorities make that determination based on...reasons. It's not a random decision. So...let's see some justifiable reasons?
 
Please, the RCC invented Popes and then had to invent ex Cathedra to control him.

Popes are theologically wrong.



WHy do you lie? You know I dont believe in theocracy, they are a denial of God's Will, He who gave us all the free will to follow Him or not.

And believing that abortion is not murder has nothing to do with anything Jewish, it's just where, as with Christianity, there are overlaps in common moralities.



The legislative authorities make that determination based on...reasons. It's not a random decision. So...let's see some justifiable reasons?
There is a lot of reasons, but you’ve already declared you accept no reason for abortion to be legal, so in your case (although you’re probably old enough such a law has no impact on you either) you can just accept it and accept punishment same as sovereign citizens who claim they’re not subject to license plates
 
There is a lot of reasons, but you’ve already declared you accept no reason for abortion to be legal,

I'm guessing there's supposed to be a 'not' in front of 'to be legal?' (Otherwise, of course, there are many reasons that abortion is legal)

Dont lie...where have I done that? Dont make up excuses to avoid the debate.

Quote where I've done so. Surely you cant be making stuff up because you cant debate a woman?

so in your case (although you’re probably old enough such a law has no impact on you either) you can just accept it and accept punishment same as sovereign citizens who claim they’re not subject to license plates
Non-discussion, just more avoidance.
 
The production of law and the service of dispute resolution should be supplied by the market. Private law has a long history, and if you are interested, this is one of the best books on the subject.

Today in the US the failure of government-run courts has created the huge industry of private arbitration for businesses to handle disputes with each other. These private arbitration firms create their own laws, which are written by experts in the field instead of by some idiot politician or some scumbag lobbyist - and with government, those are the only two choices you get.

Or consider how credit card companies handle disputes between buyers and sellers, that's another example of private adjudication. Private law is everywhere, even on this forum.
So just how would 'the market' make and enforce laws against rape and armed robbery. to take two random examples. In my opinion your ideas are a recipe for chaos and domination by the strong over the weak. I hope that few will be tempted to follow you down the path to anarchy.
 
Lol, now you’re arguing religious doctrine and purported disagreements (really there is no disagreement, abortion is murder under christian principles and anyone who tries to argue it’s not is simply wrong or self deluded) about it is the basis for abortion not being murder.

Your fringe theocratic views should not be the basis for public policy
Says the guy that thinks men should be able to rape their wives.
 
Not necessarily. The police made the arrest based on what the law says. The DA ultimately in most jurisdictions decides if a case is pursued or not. His decision not to file charges could be based on a lack of evidence, new information, or just the likelihood of not securing a conviction in front of a jury. That being said, many jurisdictions have grand juries in place to either override a DA's lack of willingness to prosecute, or bring a charge where no previous charge was ever initiated.

The law in Texas which the people of Texas put into place is very clear. The police are not wrong for actually making arrests and then the process goes on from there. If the DA is avoiding prosecution because that is his personal political stand on this, then the process allows for voters to recall that elected official, or replace him in the next election.

Evidence suggests that the woman did an illegal self abortion in a state which does not allow it at that stage of fetal development. Roe V Wade actually allows states to at some point protect a fetus, so why are people upset about that?
You need to read the law. The mother is specifically exempt from any charges like murder. That's the basis for ONE concern about this quickly abandoned indictment, which the statement indicates was dropped because she CANNOT be prosecuted under Texas law for what she was charged. The question is how in the hell did a grand jury indict, and under what statute? How in the hell did a judge sign off on anything? Why did the hospital believe it had a reporting obligation?

Or, if you think the law provides for prosecuting the mother for murder, you can attempt to cite the statute. You won't be able to do that.
 
So just how would 'the market' make and enforce laws against rape and armed robbery. to take two random examples. In my opinion your ideas are a recipe for chaos and domination by the strong over the weak. I hope that few will be tempted to follow you down the path to anarchy.
That is the problem. Arbitration is pretty famously or infamously rigged against "the weak." It's the market at work, frankly. The first problem is the arbitrators generally get paid by the company, not the consumer, and if you follow the money, that's a serious issue. In the "market" the person paying the bills is the one the person paid owes his or her devotion. Arbitrators are supposed to be independent, but if you do arbitration, and Intuit and other big companies who use arbitration (to pick one example) has 1,000 cases, you want to be on that list. You won't be if you side too often with consumers.

Second, the process means if you get ripped off by $100 by Verizon, who has the time to take that to arbitration? And for a possible 'win' of $100? No one except as a matter of principle, and Verizon knows it, so they know they can rip off a bunch of people by $100 and face relatively few cases. Forced arbitration means it cannot be filed as a class action lawsuit, so they're good. It's simple cost/benefit analysis. Rip off 100,000 customers for $100 each, pay off 200 of them plus arbitration fees, and profit is maximized.

Maybe the person cheering this would consider the 'solution' some lawyers found to be acceptable, which is to then file thousands of arbitration cases and gum up the works and subject the companies to now thousands of small, annoying, ultimately expensive arbitration proceedings. That works when it's possible, but it rarely is possible, and companies will find a way to make those non-viable.
 
The production of law and the service of dispute resolution should be supplied by the market. Private law has a long history, and if you are interested, this is one of the best books on the subject.

Today in the US the failure of government-run courts has created the huge industry of private arbitration for businesses to handle disputes with each other. These private arbitration firms create their own laws, which are written by experts in the field instead of by some idiot politician or some scumbag lobbyist - and with government, those are the only two choices you get.
In that example, arbitration is fine, and it's because the two companies are relatively equal in terms of power and actually AGREE to arbitration. The way it works in real life is a handful of big companies, basically all of them in a particular market segment, present consumers with a choice - agree to forced arbitration, or else you don't get the service, a job, whatever. So it's imposed top down on consumers/employees who aren't given an effective option to decline or accept the offer of forced arbitration.

It's part of the problem with the consolidation of every market segment into just a handful of powerful corporations, or less. If there were 1,000 competitors, then consumers likely have an actual 'choice.' If one company uses forced arbitration and consumers don't like it, or employees don't like it, there are other options. But if there are 4 companies, and all four decide to use forced arbitration, there is no opportunity for an actual choice.
Or consider how credit card companies handle disputes between buyers and sellers, that's another example of private adjudication. Private law is everywhere, even on this forum.
Yes, private law is everywhere, and where it exists it does so to serve the interests of the powerful. We know that because the powerful insist on "private law" whenever they can - give the weak a "all or nothing" option.
 
In that example, arbitration is fine, and it's because the two companies are relatively equal in terms of power and actually AGREE to arbitration.

What exactly do you mean by "power"?

Yes, private law is everywhere, and where it exists it does so to serve the interests of the powerful.

No, it's the government system that serves the interests of the powerful. It is common knowledge that government-run courts are extremely biased in favor of the rich/politically-connected people, and against the poor.
 
Back
Top Bottom