15th Texan City Becomes ‘Sanctuary’ For The Unborn, Outlaws Abortion Within City Limits

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Annee


I expected this. Sorry it was you.

Person pregnant has the legal right to terminate. It’s no one else’s business.

No one else has that right.

This is an Appeal to Authority fallacy.

Yes, SCOTUS ruled this. It doesn't mean it is correct.

It’s not a belief.

Law should not be determined by personal belief.

Maybe it shouldn't. But it is.

If it weren't, abortion wouldn't be legal while drug use and prostitution is. "My body my choice" or "self determination" would rule the day.

Although abortion is not really "my body" only, as there is still that other body inside. Nonetheless, law is about belief. Its why people are bitching about the SCOTUS replacement.

a reply to: Annee

It’s not a belief.

No, it's an opinion.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Annee

It’s not a belief.

No, it's an opinion.

TheRedneck

Explain.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Annee


I expected this. Sorry it was you.

Person pregnant has the legal right to terminate. It’s no one else’s business.

No one else has that right.

This is an Appeal to Authority fallacy.

Yes, SCOTUS ruled this. It doesn't mean it is correct.

It’s not a belief.

Law should not be determined by personal belief.

Maybe it shouldn't. But it is.

If it weren't, abortion wouldn't be legal while drug use and prostitution is. "My body my choice" or "self determination" would rule the day.

Although abortion is not really "my body" only, as there is still that other body inside. Nonetheless, law is about belief. Its why people are bitching about the SCOTUS replacement.

Oh Hell Yes! Balance of power will definitely be affected by another religious wacko.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

what blows my mind the most is that its the perception of the mother than determines if it is "life" or not. That is such a flimsy, lousy hurdle.

If the mom doesn't want it, and its removed/kill, its abortion. If the mom wants it and its removed/killed, it murder.

Quoted for posterity.

That observation is the reason so many are so upset over the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice. If Roe v. Wade were truly Constitutional, there would be no uproar. The decision is based only on what one group of people thought at one point in time and has no backing in the Constitution. And those who support abortion know this.

That's simply not how law is supposed to work. An act is either legal or illegal, period. No one's opinions matter determining legality.

That's why juries are referred to as "finders of fact" and not "purveyors of opinion." Facts matter in law, not opinions.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Legislating from the bench. That is essentially what has happened.

And since that is apparently fair play, that is why controlling who gets to the bench is so important to the game.

That isn't how it is supposed to work.

a reply to: Annee

Your opinion that Roe v. Wade is somehow not being used to apply the law selectively based on a belief is nothing more than your opinion. A very illogical one at that, since you have been given information that shows personal belief does indeed determine whether or not an act is illegal.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Annee

Your opinion that Roe v. Wade is somehow not being used to apply the law selectively based on a belief is nothing more than your opinion. A very illogical one at that, since you have been given information that shows personal belief does indeed determine whether or not an act is illegal.

TheRedneck

That is illogical.

Welcome to the American Taliban.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: TheRedneck

Legislating from the bench. That is essentially what has happened.

And since that is apparently fair play, that is why controlling who gets to the bench is so important to the game.

That isn't how it is supposed to work.

That I agree with.

I don’t want an American Taliban.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Legislating from the bench. That is essentially what has happened.

And since that is apparently fair play, that is why controlling who gets to the bench is so important to the game.

That isn't how it is supposed to work.

No, it's not, but we can see in this very thread, on this very page, that such is how some want it to work. Another reference to religion just above, as though all religion opposes abortion and all secular belief does not. And if it takes a group of nine judges instead of a few hundred duly elected legislators to enact a law that supports their hatred of religion, so be it. Just look at how many times in the past four years we have seen lower court judges try to force their will on the public by making up new laws or exceptions to existing law.

I find it extremely tiring when people try to shoehorn a simple respect for life into a religious box. I take that as proof that those who oppose religion also have no respect for life. If they did, they could understand religion is not required.

Anyway, back to your point (sorry for the digression), the purpose of the Supreme Court was never to make law. They are there to ensure that Constitutional protections are adhered to. The law is already made before it gets to the court. That's why Justices are appointed and not elected, and why we have a Congress too.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Annee

Is that the newest talking point? The American Taliban? LOL!

So why don't you explain the legal difference between these situations:

• A pregnant woman is walking to an abortion clinic and is stabbed in the belly. The child dies. The stabber is charged with murder.
  
  
• A pregnant woman is walking to an abortion clinic. She enters and has an abortion, during which the child dies. The abortionist is paid for their services.

Both situations involved identical facts: a person other than the mother performed an action that resulted in the death of her unborn child. In both instances she wanted the child to die. In the former, the action was taken by someone she did not want to kill the child, and in the latter the action was taken by someone she did want to kill the child. There is no other difference. How is one murder and the other legal commerce?

That is enforcement of the law based solely on the opinion/belief of the woman.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

If it helps, as an atheist I vehemently oppose abortion.

I also do not support the death penalty, i don't kill insects (other than wasps and scorpions...because screw them), and do not support a war that doesn't involve defending our borders.

Its not a religious quandry. Its simply about life, and seeing the value in the miracle of it.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

As a Christian, I still support the death penalty (under extreme circumstances) and I'm not very squeamish about killing insects. In other words, you would seem to have more respect for life in general than I do.

I see the difference in that you are non-religious instead of anti-religious. That's a big difference. I have no issue with someone who is non-religious; I tend to have a lot of issues with those who are anti-religious.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

My mom finds great comfort in her faith, and did especially after my dad and grandfather died a month apart from cancer about 20 years ago.

I'd never want to take that comfort away from her. As just one example of why i am not "anti-religious".

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I'm not very squeamish about killing insects.

I see the difference in that you are non-religious instead of anti-religious.

LOL - I still apologize to flies & ants when I kill them

I am not anti-religious as long as religious belief doesn’t affect me.

It does when it comes to abortion.

I lost my first pregnancy, when I was 20, to miscarriage (spontaneous abortion).

Had 2 daughters.

Then had an elective abortion.

At least I can speak first hand experience on the subject.

It’s not a choice I’d want to make again. But, I’d be extremely pissed if I hadn’t had the right to make it.

That right belonged to me — and it’s no one else’s damn business.

Majority of anti-abortionists are so because of religious belief. As far as I’m concerned, their belief is infringing on my non-religious choice.

a reply to: Annee

TO distill it in such a way allows one to ignore the logic of the arguments presented. The fact that non-religious people can oppose abortion makes your argument null.

It may be religion that leads some to believe that a fetus has rights. But its not a religious belief. Its a humanitarian belief.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Its a humanitarian belief.

That's pretty one sided, black and white, cut and dry, for a Humanitarian "belief".

But you go ahead and go with that!
You do you!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Its a humanitarian belief.

That's pretty one sided, black and white, cut and dry, for a Humanitarian "belief".

But you go ahead and go with that!
You do you!

Then please, describe it for me. It certainly cannot be a religious belief (as asserted) if atheists hold the same belief.

So what drives my thoughts on this?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So what drives my thoughts on this?

I'm not your Tarot Card reader.

But I would ask, as an Humanitarian, is there any time when a woman's choice to abort aligns with your humanitarianism?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The only instance would be in the case of the mothers life being at risk.

Otherwise, its still a personal choice to devalue human life for other considerations. Rape? Nope. Its an unfortunate occurance for sure. But it in no way predicates a devaluing of human life. The baby is going to have mental issues? Nope, life is life.

If it makes you feel better, I hold your life to be of equal value too. And would campaign to defend and protect your life at any time its needed.