I think, one of the main issues, is empowering people to sue each other. As a concept, I don't like the fact that the government can encourage people to snitch. As we see now, it just opens up a whole pandora's box and creates a whole lot of instability in an already unstable practice.
If going after abortion clinics is something the state is serious about, then it should be something the state should do on its own, using its own lawyers and legal resources.
2ndly(consider this answer your second question as well), it doesn't go after the economic aspect of abortion. There is really no need for a law like this and it did nothing for the longer term aspect against abortion....provided, of course, it doesn't end up overturning Roe.
Yes, factually it is so. Are you involved in this sub-forum and dont know that?No. No I don't think so.
Shouldn’t Texas leaders be more focused on their power grid?From the Guardian:https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-doctor-abortion-sued-pro-lifers-backpedaling
It would appear that the pro-life people thought that their law would shut down all abortions but the first law suit is against a doctor that ignored their dire punishments. And the people suing are disbarred kooks (one is a raving "Christian" kook) looking for money and not fine upstanding, moral pro-lifers righting injustices. In other words what they thought was so clever has turned into an embarrassing circus. And they are not happy. Awwww
From the Guardian:https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-doctor-abortion-sued-pro-lifers-backpedaling
It would appear that the pro-life people thought that their law would shut down all abortions but the first law suit is against a doctor that ignored their dire punishments. And the people suing are disbarred kooks (one is a raving "Christian" kook) looking for money and not fine upstanding, moral pro-lifers righting injustices. In other words what they thought was so clever has turned into an embarrassing circus. And they are not happy. Awwww
Gun ownership....what kind of guns? All guns?So in other words, you respect the constitutionally protected right of gun ownership, but not the constitutionally protected right of reproductive freedom.
Now that's clear.
I would agree that optimally abortion would be rare. Doing so by restricting rights is not "common ground".
Dark Wizard is advising pro-choice people to find common ground with the other side. He's not so enthusiastic about finding any common ground on gun legislation for some reason....Gun ownership....what kind of guns? All guns?
My common ground is that I respect rights that are enumerated in the constitution. If it's not enumerated, it's not worth respecting until there is cause toYour common ground is respecting rights you agree with, but not the ones you dislike? LOL.
except you're talking to someone who's found much common ground with gun control advocates already, so the joke's on you.Dark Wizard is advising pro-choice people to find common ground with the other side. He's not so enthusiastic about finding any common ground on gun legislation for some reason....
or, you know, read the constitution.See that is the thing. To find out if a given specific section in a broad reform bill, will pass federal appellate scrutiny on constitutional grounds, you have to write it, pass it , get it signed and wait while it gets challenged. You probably have to do some compromising on some iffy issues without having that crystal ball working.
it means i don't agree, and that's just how it is. I have no desire to change her opinion, however ridiculous it may be, but she seems to have every desire to change mine, so I refuse to budge.I don't get you. Lursa said the unborn have no Constitutional rights, women do, and protecting the unborn without the consent of the woman violates many Constitutional rights of the woman, including bodily autonomy.
What does your reply mean? Please be precise.
I dont really understand what constitutes "until there is cause to."My common ground is that I respect rights that are enumerated in the constitution. If it's not enumerated, it's not worth respecting until there is cause to
I dont expect you to 'budge.' I do expect you to come to a discussion forum with a rational, justifiable reason for your opinion.it means i don't agree, and that's just how it is. I have no desire to change her opinion, however ridiculous it may be, but she seems to have every desire to change mine, so I refuse to budge.
I never said RvW was poorly implemented. I said the texas law was poorly implemented.I meant, how has RvW been poorly implemented. Almost everyone agrees the TX end-run is bullshit.
Well, factually, it's only your opinion, and I don't HAVE to agree with it, and I won't.Yes, factually it is so. Are you involved in this sub-forum and dont know that?
I never said RvW was poorly implemented. I said the texas law was poorly implemented.
I think RvW was poorly WRITTEN, but for completely different reasons, and I never brought that up to begin with.
Well, factually, it's only your opinion, and I don't HAVE to agree with it, and I won't.
don't worry about it. Point is, gun ownership rights are enumerated in the constitution. Abortion "rights" are not. Download a doc of the constitution, ctrl+f, and then type in "abortion", and you will find it shows up 0 times. You may not like that fact, but that's just how it is.I dont really understand what constitutes "until there is cause to."
there isn't. It comes into conflict with other's rights, namely the right to life. The reality of the situation is that, without life, liberty doesn't exist. Life must come first.Can you explain if you think there's cause not to respect a woman's right to abortion? And if not, why not?
non-enumerated rights are those implied by the constitution, from inferring in its text. For example, the right to vote.Other non-enumerated rights include the right to adults having consensual sex, the right to move to another state, the right to reproduce. Just some examples. I think I'd like to see how your explanation applies to those too...whatever it may be.
I don't like to waste the time on tangents. We're talking about the texas law, as is the topic of the thread.Which apparently you choose not to share? Uh huh.
I agree with the scotus decision to let the texas law go into effect, yes.No, factually it's not just my opinion, that's what 'not just my opinion' means. If you choose not to agree with the Const and several (and consistent) SCOTUS interpretations of that, of course that's up to you.
a tangent isn't a debate. If you want to debate the tangent, have at it. but I'm here to discuss the texas law, the topic of the thread.But again...it seems odd you come here and refuse to debate or at least learn.
Sometime during the 1990s (I think) there were efforts to discuss areas of agreement. Several formal and informal conferences were held by different groups in different places with the invited participants screened to weed out the extremes of both sides. It turned out that people from both sides had points upon which they wouldn't compromise but the pro-life advocates reached their no compromise point so early into the discussions that most of these groups fizzled. The consensus was that agreement was impossible. There have not been any efforts since to discuss points of agreement. In fact the pro-life movement has gotten more and more extreme. The Texas law is the culmination of this increasing extremism.Have you ever tried to come up with a legislative 'middle ground' that will satisfy the anti-abortion coalition sufficient that any of them would endorse your 'compromise legislation' ? I have been looking for that recipe for about 40 years now.
I am never super impressed when folks who have not even taken a one hour seminar in basic statutory interpretation, or English common law ( which I haven't either), tell me how easy it is to interpret the Constitution. Law degrees are fairly important in this field. At least I know what I do not know, that is relevant to the disciplines on display when an appellate court writes an opinion.or, you know, read the constitution.
"shall not be infringed" is pretty crystal.
hmmm, I think the fault is on those who "evolve" their way out of bounds set by the constitution.Nothing in the interpretation of the second amendment has been so crystal clear as to stop the courts from 'evolving' their stance, one way or the other on what regulation is permissible and what regulation is not permissible. That is because there are a lot of words in the second amendment. You just like those four a lot.
It still doesnt mean that women dont have the right to abortion and I gave you clear examples. Why did you ignore them? Do adults have the right to consensual sex? To move to another state? Those are unenumerated, but still are rights. Yes?don't worry about it. Point is, gun ownership rights are enumerated in the constitution. Abortion "rights" are not. Download a doc of the constitution, ctrl+f, and then type in "abortion", and you will find it shows up 0 times. You may not like that fact, but that's just how it is.
there isn't. It comes into conflict with other's rights, namely the right to life. The reality of the situation is that, without life, liberty doesn't exist. Life must come first.
non-enumerated rights are those implied by the constitution, from inferring in its text. For example, the right to vote.
There is no right to reproduce. I, as a man, can't go up to a woman and force her to have sex with me, and tell here "It's okay, I have a right to reproduce". It doesn't exist. No one has a right to someone else's consent.
Well we just settled that that's untrue...that we do have a right to reproduce. And what is 'value' they're 'bringing to the table?' Please explain.If you want to "reproduce" so badly, I suggest first recognizing that you don't have that right, and that people are only going to consent if you bring something of value to the table.
Of course you do. I can tell simply because you have your four favorite words, you like to quote. That's why you may not be in the best position to give any lectures on the topic of 'compromise' when section of statutes are written that make challenge Roe v Wade, or US v Miller, or the Washington DC v Heller cases ( the one that makes you swoon) are discussed.hmmm, I think the fault is on those who "evolve" their way out of bounds set by the constitution.
I don't like to waste the time on tangents. We're talking about the texas law, as is the topic of the thread.
I agree with the scotus decision to let the texas law go into effect, yes.
Yeah, you are just avoiding the actual conversation.a tangent isn't a debate. If you want to debate the tangent, have at it. but I'm here to discuss the texas law, the topic of the thread.
I disagree.It still doesnt mean that women dont have the right to abortion and I gave you clear examples. Why did you ignore them? Do adults have the right to consensual sex? To move to another state? Those are unenumerated, but still are rights. Yes?
again, I disagree, and I've told you a hundred times now and in previous threads, along with the reasons why. Are you going to talk about the texas law, or not?The unborn has no right to life. Enumerated definitely not. It explicitly does not. So there is no conflict. Or...what conflict do you believe exists?
incorrect.And they're still rights, correct? And the govt is tasked with protecting them, unless there's due process otherwise, correct?
I've already told you in previous threads. As it's not relevant to this thread, I'll leave it to you to look it up.So again...where is the weakness you believe exists in a woman's right to choose abortion?
The government protects banks. Are banks rights?Yes, there is. The govt doesnt have to give you a gun for there to be a 2A, does it? No of course not. Rights are something the govt protects and may not interfere with
Scotus seemed to disagree with you on that recently.without due process.
disagreed. In fact, there are states that forcibly castrate people, and it's entirely legal.Well we just settled that that's untrue...that we do have a right to reproduce. And what is 'value' they're 'bringing to the table?' Please explain.
If I refuse to consent, you don't have a right to reproduce with me.If a woman wants to carry out a pregnancy and give birth...she absolutely has that right. The right isnt about consenting to sex, it's about reproducing. Yes or no? Does she have that right or not?
why stop at gun laws? Why not bring up free speech, free press, or trial by jury? According to you, it would be the same thing as....gun rights.LOL that's fine. It will be interesting. People keep bringing up gun laws in this discussion because it will be easy to apply the same exact thing to gun ownership and carrying. So let's see how it plays out.
I don't think it benefits you in any way to go off topic.Yeah, you are just avoiding the actual conversation.It's not hard to tell why. Your understanding of the Const is impressively poor.
I'm sure when the constitution says "abortion rights....shall not be infringed", you will let me know!Of course you do. I can tell simply because you have your four favorite words, you like to quote. That's why you may not be in the best position to give any lectures on the topic of 'compromise' when section of statutes are written that make challenge Roe v Wade, or US v Miller, or the Washington DC v Heller cases ( the one that makes you swoon) are discussed.
I disagree.
again, I disagree, and I've told you a hundred times now and in previous threads, along with the reasons why. Are you going to talk about the texas law, or not?
incorrect.
I've already told you in previous threads. As it's not relevant to this thread, I'll leave it to you to look it up.
The government protects banks. Are banks rights?
No, they're just banks, and corrupt ones at that.
Scotus seemed to disagree with you on that recently.
disagreed. In fact, there are states that forcibly castrate people, and it's entirely legal.
If I refuse to consent, you don't have a right to reproduce with me.
Never claimed anyone owed anything. Do you need to look up 'consensual?' WHy are you discussing the govt owing anyone anything? The govt doesnt owe anyone rights...OMGIf, for some reason, I did consent, it's a privilege. No one owes you sex. The government doesn't owe you sex, or any sort of reproduction.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?