Joe Boudain said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

This is maybe the most ridiculous example I've ever heard about. It sounds like a Daily Kos caricature of someone whose never actually met a conservative or a christian.

Also, are you sure it allows people to sue women? I thought it was just the clinics?

---

I've met plenty of conservative Christians. I grew up in Texas and went to A&M. While I like many of them and consider some of them friends, and some are family, my interactions with them were probably the tipping point that ultimately led to me renouncing my Christianity and leaving the church for good. You can feel the hatred in Rebel Infantry's post above and the numerous posts in Forum 16 on a daily basis.

If the law doesnt allow suits against the women, thats my mistake. But it absolutely does allow suits against providers and anyone who aids or abets an abortion, which has very broad applicability.

It's a terrible law and is blatantly unconstitutional when it comes to legal standing.

---

Larry, it's obvious you went into this discussion half-cocked and angry. You've posted numerous times that this law allows some religious nut job vigilante to target a woman whose had a miscarriage in order to make money off of her, when that has been proven false. You can hand wave it away as "oops my bad" but you've really just proven that you haven't really dived into the law itself and are getting your talking points from some left-wing pro-baby murder agenda.

---

Here's what it says:

Quote:

---

Sec.A171.208.CIVIL LIABILITY FOR VIOLATION OR AIDING OR ABETTING VIOLATION.
(a)Any person, other than an officer or employee of a state or local governmental entity in this state, may bring a civil action against any person who:
(1)performs or induces an abortion in violation of this subchapter;
(2)knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for or reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance or otherwise, if the abortion is performed or induced in violation of this subchapter, regardless of whether the person knew or should have known that the abortion would be performed or induced in violation of this subchapter; or
(3)intends to engage in the conduct described by Subdivision (1) or (2).

---

So yes, it can go after a woman if they suspect she self-induced the abortion. And it gives very, very broad applicability toward anyone who aids or abets, which can include someone who drivers her to the clinic.

Nut job vigilantes absolutely are going to come out of the woodwork for this.

Science doesn't really define or categorize anything. We do that, and then do science to describe things. You have to define "entity", science won't do it for you.

88Warrior said:

---

" This is an evil law that will have evil consequences and it's a ****ing travesty the Supreme Court is allowing it."

So a law that is intended to stop the most evil act (murder of an innocent) a person can do is considered evil?? Bizarro world we're living in.

---

You'll be less confused if you consider that your opposition doesn't think it's murder.

So, after 3 pages, have we all come to agreement on the abortion debate?

Joe Boudain said:

---

Completely disregarding religion for the moment, science is unable to determine when a life has rights, but it can determine when a new entity with unique DNA has been formed, and the first step has occurred in the chain reaction that leads to birth.

Since it's completely arbitrary where you draw the line where a life has rights, it only makes sense to be as conservative as possible. If you say that a life has rights at 6 months, and before that you can abort it, and later the definition is changed to 6 weeks; 4.1/2 months worth of people have been killed.

Given the literal life or death consequences inherent in this decision, it is only reasonable that we err as conservative as possible.

---

Actually, I would argue the most conservative side to err on would be bodily autonomy.

Dilettante said:

---

88Warrior said:

---

" This is an evil law that will have evil consequences and it's a ****ing travesty the Supreme Court is allowing it."

So a law that is intended to stop the most evil act (murder of an innocent) a person can do is considered evil?? Bizarro world we're living in.

---

You'll be less confused if you consider that your opposition doesn't think it's murder.

---

Correct. It's not murder

I don't think anyone can accuse pro-life people of evil. They are at worst misguided.

I do not think pro life people are evil. I know and am friends with many.

I do consider this law evil because of the pain it can cause people going through terrible situations. I also think forcing rape victims to carry their babies against their will is evil.

Dilettante said:

---

88Warrior said:

---

" This is an evil law that will have evil consequences and it's a ****ing travesty the Supreme Court is allowing it."

So a law that is intended to stop the most evil act (murder of an innocent) a person can do is considered evil?? Bizarro world we're living in.

---

You'll be less confused if you consider that your opposition doesn't think it's murder.

---

Oh I know they don't consider it murder. I also know that on this issue, nobody on either side will change their minds.

Macarthur said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Completely disregarding religion for the moment, science is unable to determine when a life has rights, but it can determine when a new entity with unique DNA has been formed, and the first step has occurred in the chain reaction that leads to birth.

Since it's completely arbitrary where you draw the line where a life has rights, it only makes sense to be as conservative as possible. If you say that a life has rights at 6 months, and before that you can abort it, and later the definition is changed to 6 weeks; 4.1/2 months worth of people have been killed.

Given the literal life or death consequences inherent in this decision, it is only reasonable that we err as conservative as possible.

---

Actually, I would argue the most conservative side to err on would be bodily autonomy.

---

liberty is a liberal concept, but either way it's a moot point. By conservative I meant cautionary.

larry culpepper said:

---

I do not think pro life people are evil. I know and am friends with many.

I do consider this law evil because of the pain it can cause people going through terrible situations. I also think forcing rape victims to carry their babies against their will is evil.

---

What if they have the babies and then decide the trauma is too much and decide to kill them then?

Macarthur said:

---

Dilettante said:

---

88Warrior said:

---

" This is an evil law that will have evil consequences and it's a ****ing travesty the Supreme Court is allowing it."

So a law that is intended to stop the most evil act (murder of an innocent) a person can do is considered evil?? Bizarro world we're living in.

---

You'll be less confused if you consider that your opposition doesn't think it's murder.

---

Correct. It's not murder

---

YET

Joe Boudain said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

I do not think pro life people are evil. I know and am friends with many.

I do consider this law evil because of the pain it can cause people going through terrible situations. I also think forcing rape victims to carry their babies against their will is evil.

---

What if they have the babies and then decide the trauma is too much and decide to kill them then?

---

You have actually accused others on here of hyperbole and using extreme examples. wow

88Warrior said:

---

Dilettante said:

---

88Warrior said:

---

" This is an evil law that will have evil consequences and it's a ****ing travesty the Supreme Court is allowing it."

So a law that is intended to stop the most evil act (murder of an innocent) a person can do is considered evil?? Bizarro world we're living in.

---

You'll be less confused if you consider that your opposition doesn't think it's murder.

---

Oh I know they don't consider it murder. I also know that on this issue, nobody on either side will change their minds.

---

And this is precisely why I think we MUST find reasonable middle ground.

In my mind, reasonable middle ground is having abortion as a safe and legal option for those who need it. AND putting forth significant efforts and funds toward sex education, contraceptives, foster care, social programs for impoverished families, child care programs, school lunches, etc. Doing things that are actually shown to reduce abortions, as has been proven in states and countries that do this.

Texas and mostly other southern states with strict abortion laws consistently have the highest teen pregnancy rates. https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/teen-pregnancy-rates-by-state

I'm sure my view isn't controversial at all.

88Warrior said:

---

Dilettante said:

---

88Warrior said:

---

" This is an evil law that will have evil consequences and it's a ****ing travesty the Supreme Court is allowing it."

So a law that is intended to stop the most evil act (murder of an innocent) a person can do is considered evil?? Bizarro world we're living in.

---

You'll be less confused if you consider that your opposition doesn't think it's murder.

---

Oh I know they don't consider it murder. I also know that on this issue, nobody on either side will change their minds.

---

But it is NOT murder. YOu don't get to just make up definitions

larry culpepper said:

---

88Warrior said:

---

Dilettante said:

---

88Warrior said:

---

" This is an evil law that will have evil consequences and it's a ****ing travesty the Supreme Court is allowing it."

So a law that is intended to stop the most evil act (murder of an innocent) a person can do is considered evil?? Bizarro world we're living in.

---

You'll be less confused if you consider that your opposition doesn't think it's murder.

---

Oh I know they don't consider it murder. I also know that on this issue, nobody on either side will change their minds.

---

And this is precisely why I think we MUST find reasonable middle ground.

In my mind, reasonable middle ground is having abortion as a safe and legal option for those who need it. AND putting forth significant efforts and funds toward sex education, contraceptives, foster care, social programs for impoverished families, child care programs, school lunches, etc.

I'm sure my view isn't controversial at all.

---

100000%

Macarthur said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

I do not think pro life people are evil. I know and am friends with many.

I do consider this law evil because of the pain it can cause people going through terrible situations. I also think forcing rape victims to carry their babies against their will is evil.

---

What if they have the babies and then decide the trauma is too much and decide to kill them then?

---

You have actually accused others on here of hyperbole and using extreme examples. wow

---

It's a 'what if' humor me. It's wrong to force people to carry babies against their will, but not to raise babies against their will? Why?

not only that, there are tons of other unintended consequesnces such as mental health issues, etc.

RebelE Infantry said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

88Warrior said:

---

Dilettante said:

---

88Warrior said:

---

" This is an evil law that will have evil consequences and it's a ****ing travesty the Supreme Court is allowing it."

So a law that is intended to stop the most evil act (murder of an innocent) a person can do is considered evil?? Bizarro world we're living in.

---

You'll be less confused if you consider that your opposition doesn't think it's murder.

---

Oh I know they don't consider it murder. I also know that on this issue, nobody on either side will change their minds.

---

And this is precisely why I think we MUST find reasonable middle ground.

In my mind, reasonable middle ground is having abortion as a safe and legal option for those who need it. AND putting forth significant efforts and funds toward sex education, contraceptives, foster care, social programs for impoverished families, child care programs, school lunches, etc. Doing things that are actually shown to reduce abortions, as has been proven in states and countries that do this.

Texas and mostly other southern states with strict abortion laws consistently have the highest teen pregnancy rates. https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/teen-pregnancy-rates-by-state

I'm sure my view isn't controversial at all.

---

What rEaSoNaBlE mIdDlE gRoUnD do you think you're going to find with people who (correctly) believe that abortion kills an innocent baby. We are not interested in compromise with you. We will take whatever victory we can get and then keep pushing until we have achieved total abolition. We are going to win.

---

I know you aren't. But you are also in denial of reality that abortions happen and will continue to happen (at higher rates most likely) no matter how many laws you pass to the contrary. And your side seems completely uninterested in researching what ACTUALLY results in lowering abortion numbers and unwilling to invest in those types of efforts. Which leads me to believe you aren't really serious about lowering abortion. More so punishing people.

I don't see this as an us versus them battle that needs to be won like you appear to. I see this as an issue that demands good and effective policy.

This law is neither of those things.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

So, after 3 pages, have we all come to agreement on the abortion debate?

---

Yes. We all agree that the other side should go #%^$ themselves.

---

UNITY!!!

Joe Boudain said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

I do not think pro life people are evil. I know and am friends with many.

I do consider this law evil because of the pain it can cause people going through terrible situations. I also think forcing rape victims to carry their babies against their will is evil.

---

What if they have the babies and then decide the trauma is too much and decide to kill them then?

---

You have actually accused others on here of hyperbole and using extreme examples. wow

---

It's a 'what if' humor me. It's wrong to force people to carry babies against their will, but not to raise babies against their will? Why?

---

I'm not sure what you're getting at...

I don't think we do FORCE people to raise babies. People give up kids all the time. IF you're bad at it, you pay some societal or legal price, but if the system works correctly, the kid is taken from that 'bad parent' and life moves forward.

Is that what you're getting at?

Macarthur said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

I do not think pro life people are evil. I know and am friends with many.

I do consider this law evil because of the pain it can cause people going through terrible situations. I also think forcing rape victims to carry their babies against their will is evil.

---

What if they have the babies and then decide the trauma is too much and decide to kill them then?

---

You have actually accused others on here of hyperbole and using extreme examples. wow

---

It's a 'what if' humor me. It's wrong to force people to carry babies against their will, but not to raise babies against their will? Why?

---

I'm not sure what you're getting at...

I don't think we do FORCE people to raise babies. People give up kids all the time. IF you're bad at it, you pay some societal or legal price, but if the system works correctly, the kid is taken from that 'bad parent' and life moves forward.

Is that what you're getting at?

---

absolutely, instead of abortion; have the mother give their child up for adoption. Win/Win/Win. Person who doesn't want the inconvenience of raising a child doesn't have to, the person who wants a child gets one, and nobody is killed.

Macarthur said:

---

88Warrior said:

---

Dilettante said:

---

88Warrior said:

---

" This is an evil law that will have evil consequences and it's a ****ing travesty the Supreme Court is allowing it."

So a law that is intended to stop the most evil act (murder of an innocent) a person can do is considered evil?? Bizarro world we're living in.

---

You'll be less confused if you consider that your opposition doesn't think it's murder.

---

Oh I know they don't consider it murder. I also know that on this issue, nobody on either side will change their minds.

---

But it is NOT murder. YOu don't get to just make up definitions

---

By the current, legal definition you are correct. You can twist and shape it in whatever way you want but in the end it's the intentional ending of an innocent life. A life that has absolutely no say in the decision. Just because it's currently legal doesn't make it "right". Just one person's opinion though.

You are denying bodily autonomy of the woman if she does not want to have the child.

And it's not a win/win/win. That is a fundamental flaw of your example.

Macarthur said:

---

You are denying bodily autonomy of the woman if she does not want to have the child.

And it's not a win/win/win. That is a fundamental flaw of your example.

---

She's denying her own bodily autonomy in the overwhelming majority of cases, she got pregnant. If she does not want to have the child she should not be having sex. Children are a wholly foreseeable consequence of having children.

You autonomy ends where another life begins.

88Warrior said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

88Warrior said:

---

Dilettante said:

---

88Warrior said:

---

" This is an evil law that will have evil consequences and it's a ****ing travesty the Supreme Court is allowing it."

So a law that is intended to stop the most evil act (murder of an innocent) a person can do is considered evil?? Bizarro world we're living in.

---

You'll be less confused if you consider that your opposition doesn't think it's murder.

---

Oh I know they don't consider it murder. I also know that on this issue, nobody on either side will change their minds.

---

But it is NOT murder. YOu don't get to just make up definitions

---

By the current, legal definition you are correct. You can twist and shape it in whatever way you want but in the end it's the intentional ending of an innocent life. A life that has absolutely no say in the decision. Just because it's currently legal doesn't make it "right". Just one person's opinion though.

---

I don't care about if it's "right". This might come as a shock to some but I think there are times when an abortion is morally correct.

And I do not think a 'baby' has a 'right' to that mothers body.

Joe Boudain said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

You are denying bodily autonomy of the woman if she does not want to have the child.

And it's not a win/win/win. That is a fundamental flaw of your example.

---

She's denying her own bodily autonomy in the overwhelming majority of cases, she got pregnant. If she does not want to have the child she should not be having sex. Children are a wholly foreseeable consequence of having children.

You autonomy ends where another life begins.

---

Nope. You could not be more wrong. I love the argument that she shouldn't have sex...It's pretty much only made by a man, who of course, doesn't have to carry and deliver the child.

Joe Boudain said:

---

You autonomy ends where another life begins.

---

When is that?

Conception

Life doesn't begin at conception.