Texas abortion law

[Isaac]

In addition, allowing lawsuits by anybody, for damages without any client or actual allegation of harm by the plaintiff is an inherent violation of due process.

So you believe that 100% of all the laws that create statutory causes of action, or "statutory liability" are wrong?

 

[Isaac]

I do not know the details of the bill and I am a staunch supporter of state's rights - as long as they do not negate constitutional rights. It's a shame most Americans do not know the difference and even worse, do not care.

The so-called constitutional right to privacy is a recent concoction, and very debatable. (speaking of negating constitutional rights).

 

[conception_native_0123]

It's a shame most Americans do not know the difference

i'm one of them.

 

[Isaac]

The point is, "Life begins at conception" is NOT a universally agreed-upon viewpoint. To force people to accept that would violate their religious rights to believe as their own religion teaches. My point is that to establish ANY starting point for the USA and say "that is it for everybody" is a violation of the Constitution's Establishment clause (by implication).

And my point is, you could take that argument and use it to tear down most any other law, too.
Most people believe murdering your wife is wrong, but some may not. Some may believe it is perfectly virtuous behavior.

So, do existing laws against murder

violate the Constitution's Establishment clause (by implication)

?

Or are you trying to draw a distinction between these very small differences:
- Anti-abortion laws are wrongly based on a religious notion of when life begins, but
- Anti-murder laws are (according to you) not based on any religious notions about life/death, but rather, by a universal, absolute truth that we all seem to (against all odds), know to be true, inside of us?

...which means all I have to do is say they are both hereby on the same basis and I'm good?

 

[NauticalGent]

The so-called constitutional right to privacy is a recent concoction, and very debatable. (speaking of negating constitutional rights).

Actually, as you may already know, there IS no constitutional right explicitly mentioned - however the Supreme Court supposedly has declared that certain amendments, such as the 4th, IMPLY as such. Slippery slope and it allows Big Brother to skirt the issue.

 

[Isaac]

Actually, as you may already know, there IS no constitutional right explicitly mentioned - however the Supreme Court supposedly has declared that certain amendments, such as the 4th, IMPLY as such. Slippery slope and it allows Big Brother to skirt the issue.

Exactly ... my "so-called" was loaded.
And I admit, it's a very tempting theory, I mean, who doesn't love privacy, even perhaps 'especially' conservatives? Everyone loves it.

I like Salted Caramel ice cream too, so if the S.C. ever found a right to that, it's possible I'd say I believed it despite my better judgment, which is what I think most people who agree with this 'privacy' thing have done.

In fact now that I think about it, that seems to be progressives' most frequent argument. Without a respect for the law, they're always happy to create new constitutional and legal interpretations as long as it seems "good" - the result.

If tomorrow the supreme court found a Right to Housing, you know every progressive would applaud. They don't care as much about facts as results. Oops, I'm on a tangent.

 

[NauticalGent]

Oops, I'm on a tangent.

Yep, but IMHO, spot on. Need a ladder to dismount that soapbox?

 

[Isaac]

Yep, but IMHO, spot on. Need a ladder to dismount that soapbox?

Just about, yes!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

And my point is, you could take that argument and use it to tear down most any other law, too.
Most people believe murdering your wife is wrong, but some may not. Some may believe it is perfectly virtuous behavior.

So, do existing laws against murder

?

Or are you trying to draw a distinction between these very small differences:
- Anti-abortion laws are wrongly based on a religious notion of when life begins, but
- Anti-murder laws are (according to you) not based on any religious notions about life/death, but rather, by a universal, absolute truth that we all seem to (against all odds), know to be true, inside of us?

...which means all I have to do is say they are both hereby on the same basis and I'm good?

If we look at history, it has long been a principle that murdering a person was a wrongful act. The Bible does, in fact, offer "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life" as a moral principle. The SAME SECTION of the Bible declares that if a man strikes a pregnant woman and she loses the baby, but she is not otherwise harmed, that there shall only be a monetary penalty for the miscreant. But if the woman ALSO dies, then the "life for a life" rule applies. Like or not, there IS a long-standing historical distinction between the two cases you tried to pile together.

Isaac, I am not a violent person who wants to kill babies. I am, however, a person who doesn't want to interfere in the life choices of another person who is in a tough situation and who has a horrendous choice to make. That horrendous choice comes about because religion condemns wanton women even though it was a man who had to be there to start that baby. But, you see, religion doesn't want to lay blame on men because modern religion is STILL patriarchal. There is still some of that "Man is the Lord and Master of his household" foolishness from 2000 or more years ago. It is time for all religions to come into the 21st century and examine our tough realities. Hell, I'd settle for getting them into the late 20th century.

There is an old saying that "If MEN could get pregnant, abortion wouldn't be a sin. It would be a sacrament."

 

[conception_native_0123]

If MEN could get pregnant

tell that to arnold schwarzenegger

 

[Isaac]

religion condemns wanton women even though it was a man who had to be there to start that baby. But, you see, religion doesn't want to lay blame on men because modern religion is STILL patriarchal. There is still some of that "Man is the Lord and Master of his household" foolishness from 2000 or more years ago. It is time for all religions to come into the 21st century and examine our tough realities. Hell, I'd settle for getting them into the late 20th century.

There is an old saying that "If MEN could get pregnant, abortion wouldn't be a sin. It would be a sacrament."

I've heard this asserted and repeated a lot, with no actual experience (from mine anyway) to support it (I'm referring mostly to prominent American religions, since that's what we're talking about - and since it's that religion that is what you're saying is the basis for anti-abortion laws, mostly).

None of my religious upbringing, nor any of the religious events/literature/material that I've had the chance to review, have ever emphasized any type of "guilt" of a woman over that of a man in this circumstance. (There's no need to bring up Islam or the Taliban, since that's irrelevant to the 'religious basis' that you feel inappropriately frames the anti-abortion sentiment in the USA). And I grew up smack-dab in the middle of the types of religious sects that are mostly behind the anti-abortion sentiments in the USA - Catholics, evangelical Christians, and various flavors and versions thereof or close. Not only that, but I have seen zero evidence that there is any percentage lacking of women in the anti-abortion crowd.

Many people say this as a cheap shot, since the issue at hand (abortion) is obviously an act that only a woman can take, and therefore, the prohibition mostly directly affects the acts/behavior of the woman since the abortion is performed on her only. Truthfully, it's not very rational to claim that in order to participate in the making of a law, one HAS to be a party specifically affected by that law. We are all quite comfortable with many laws that will never affect us personally. We may all have an opinion, for example, about taxation of billionaires.
(But, if you feel this angle of the thing truly is important, do keep in mind the large numbers of anti-abortion women who exist, as well. I would go as far as to say that if you somehow could 'know' the entire population of people with anti-abortion sentiment, you would NOT find that it was loaded with men...and that finding would destroy this argument).

That has nothing to do with the blame ascribed to the parties - it just means we can't give the man an abortion, so it's a moot point.

I'm just calling out that it's quite possible for people to believe abortion is wrong in the same way they believe murder is wrong. We could come up with 100 different speculations or explanations for WHY those people believe it is wrong, but it seems to me you can't be very successful undermining the basis for one without equally undermining the basis of the other. If you feel there is some great precedent for murder being wrong that transcends religion, we could just switch to any number of other things - the result is about the same.

Each gender feels "put upon" when it comes to crimes that seem to "target" just that gender - either by definition (abortion), or by enforcement (domestic violence, where women actually commit the majority of domestic violence, but men incur most of the enforcement).

The reality is, just because the only possible enforcement of abortion prohibition happens to be limited to women (obviously), that doesn't make it unfair - it just means a man can't have the abortion.

Of course I know you are not a violent person who wants to kill babies.
Either way this has been a good discussion and I give us all kudos for being capable of discussing it - not just yelling.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

There's no need to bring up Islam or the Taliban, since that's irrelevant to the 'religious basis' that you feel inappropriately frames the anti-abortion sentiment in the USA

You have clearly missed the point, which is exactly why I brought them up. Different religions have different views on the beginnings of personal life. For you to say "THIS STARTING POINT IS ABSOLUTE" implies you have accepted the beliefs of a given religion or religious sub-group. But in the USA, the law of the land CANNOT do that. Doing so is called "establishment of religion." For comparison, see "Anglican Church" in England. That is an officially state-recognized religion. Or see the Islamic religion in Qatar or Yemen or Afghanistan (now). Again, an established religion.

You CERTAINLY can believe as you wish about religion. But it is incorrect to state what law can and cannot do. We the people as a group can do that through Congress. But even Congress has limits. The U.S. Constitution forbids establishment of ANY religion. To pick an early starting date DISestablishes all religions with later starting thresholds for when life begins. Separation of Church and State requires total avoidance of this mine field.

Bringing up the other religions was TOTALLY relevant to the argument here. We have Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Fundamentalist Christians, Orthodox Christians, Catholics, Protestants, atheists... all of them citizens who do NOT want someone else's religion dismissing their own beliefs. The only way to stop that dismissal is to not to allow ANY law impinging on that social conflict.

 

[Isaac]

Well, okay @The_Doc_Man ... to be pondered.