coupland boy said:

---

Will it be put to a vote in Texas?

---

I wish it would so it can be settled instead of us having to choose a republican or democrat based on that sole issue.

the_batman26 said:

---

Sorry, but both are equally wrong to me. I also find it odd how abstinence gets mocked at relentlessly when it would help curb unwanted pregnancies--wouldn't it? It's like there's no desire to return to "safe, legal, and rare."

---

And that's your belief, and that's fine.

It's just obvious that most people don't want someone else's beliefs to dictate how they live their lives.

But I'm sure in more conservative states they'll make sure women can't fully be in control of their bodies, because that's how those states will have their rights set up by their people. And even then, in time even those laws can be changed, so we'll see where it all ends up.

Burpelson said:

---

Eventually as more states take the vote and more and more states allow caudification of the right, anti-abort states will look full on punitive.

---

More like as more states land in a place that allows 1st trimester and bans late-term, the barbaric, Moloch-worshippers than allow late-term and partial-birth abortions for convenience will be exposed for the reprehensible scum they are.

It's bad enough to kill innocent life. At least get it done as early as possible, and 15 weeks is more than enough time.

Frederick Palowaski said:

---

Burpelson said:

---

Can pregnant women drive in high-occupancy lane?

---

If someone kills a pregnant woman and the fetus is it a double homicide?

---

Yes. It can be charged as two counts of homicide.

No it is not human life. Human DNA, sure, but it is not a human being. When in Planck time does it become a human being? That's not entirely answerable but it does have a specific moment I suppose for each individual. I've usually taken a position that the ability to suffer and feel pain is the correct line in the sand of when you have crossed a threshold into personhood that requires legal protection.

Muktheduck said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

The issue to me is that if you don't agree with the peoples decree because you have some morality issues with what people want, you are then painted as the immoral person who wants handmaid's tale to be a reality.

---

Abortion is an issue though that is at an absolute impasse. If you truly believe that the second sperm enters an ova that it is human life, anything that ends that life is baby murder. I understand a position that says I am 100% against baby murder, and there's not much nuance around how much baby murder one is willing to support. Just as pretty much no one accepts slavery light, slavery is just evil. End of story.

I understand that position, and I disagree with it because I don't think that human personhood begins at conception. As soon as I disagree with when personhood begins, we have now started an argument about, to the pro-life side, when am I allowed to murder a baby. So, it's not that these people want handmaid's tale to be a reality, it is that we have an impossible impasse about defining personhood where no matter what you are either a murderer or someone that wants to enforce your definition of personhood on someone who does not accept that definition and the permanent implications of parenthood.

---

We've been at that impasse before with assigning personhood to slaves. Seems pretty solved nowadays. History doesn't chastise the anti-slavery movement for forcing their view of personhood on to others, in fact it outright commends them for initiating a civil war over the issue.

---

This is an argument that you will be vindicated by history and those that disagree with you are modern day for phrenologists. Well, I disagree but I understand your position is absolute on one personhood begins.

Malibu2 said:

---

Muktheduck said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

The issue to me is that if you don't agree with the peoples decree because you have some morality issues with what people want, you are then painted as the immoral person who wants handmaid's tale to be a reality.

---

Abortion is an issue though that is at an absolute impasse. If you truly believe that the second sperm enters an ova that it is human life, anything that ends that life is baby murder. I understand a position that says I am 100% against baby murder, and there's not much nuance around how much baby murder one is willing to support. Just as pretty much no one accepts slavery light, slavery is just evil. End of story.

I understand that position, and I disagree with it because I don't think that human personhood begins at conception. As soon as I disagree with when personhood begins, we have now started an argument about, to the pro-life side, when am I allowed to murder a baby. So, it's not that these people want handmaid's tale to be a reality, it is that we have an impossible impasse about defining personhood where no matter what you are either a murderer or someone that wants to enforce your definition of personhood on someone who does not accept that definition and the permanent implications of parenthood.

---

We've been at that impasse before with assigning personhood to slaves. Seems pretty solved nowadays. History doesn't chastise the anti-slavery movement for forcing their view of personhood on to others, in fact it outright commends them for initiating a civil war over the issue.

---

This is an argument that you will be vindicated by history and those that disagree with you are modern day for phrenologists. Well, I disagree but I understand your position is absolute on one personhood begins.

---

It would be one thing if the left - you know, the party you support for the most part? - was arguing against a complete ban. No, they want any time for any reason abortions, and this is from national and state party leadership, like state governors and federal representatives.

Malibu2 said:

---

No it is not human life. Human DNA, sure, but it is not a human being. When in Planck time does it become a human being? That's not entirely answerable but it does have a specific moment I suppose for each individual. I've usually taken a position that the ability to suffer and feel pain is the correct line in the sand of when you have crossed a threshold into personhood that requires legal protection.

---

A lot of science has concluded that unborn babies can feel pain in the womb as early as 12 weeks. I hope you realize that being against second and third trimester abortions would make you an absolute evil monster who wants to control all liberal womens' nasty vaginas in their eyes.

And sure enough, Kansans are a primary example of this. "Beecher Bibles" were sent by prominent Massachusetts families to their expats in the territory for this purpose. They came to the region for the purpose of off-setting slavery via the New England Emigrant Aid Company.

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

Muktheduck said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

The issue to me is that if you don't agree with the peoples decree because you have some morality issues with what people want, you are then painted as the immoral person who wants handmaid's tale to be a reality.

---

Abortion is an issue though that is at an absolute impasse. If you truly believe that the second sperm enters an ova that it is human life, anything that ends that life is baby murder. I understand a position that says I am 100% against baby murder, and there's not much nuance around how much baby murder one is willing to support. Just as pretty much no one accepts slavery light, slavery is just evil. End of story.

I understand that position, and I disagree with it because I don't think that human personhood begins at conception. As soon as I disagree with when personhood begins, we have now started an argument about, to the pro-life side, when am I allowed to murder a baby. So, it's not that these people want handmaid's tale to be a reality, it is that we have an impossible impasse about defining personhood where no matter what you are either a murderer or someone that wants to enforce your definition of personhood on someone who does not accept that definition and the permanent implications of parenthood.

---

We've been at that impasse before with assigning personhood to slaves. Seems pretty solved nowadays. History doesn't chastise the anti-slavery movement for forcing their view of personhood on to others, in fact it outright commends them for initiating a civil war over the issue.

---

This is an argument that you will be vindicated by history and those that disagree with you are modern day for phrenologists. Well, I disagree but I understand your position is absolute on one personhood begins.

---

It would be one thing if the left - you know, the party you support for the most part? - was arguing against a complete ban. No, they want any time for any reason abortions, and this is from national and state party leadership, like state governors and federal representatives.

---

If you want to make an argument that my stated positions are incompatible with my voting history, fine, I'm always willing to reevaluate who I vote for and why and make adjustments in the future. I've actually started a project to state my philosophical principles and absolutes and simply measure who I vote for against those stated principles and try to do so without bias or prejudice. That being said, I don't presume to speak for a political party nor do I want to have someone else's view stand in for my own. My views are my own and I will hopefully be judged for my opinions rather than someone else's.

These "beliefs" are held by secularists and theologians alike though. It's not "bible thumping" like many characterize it.

What was voted on? Was it no holds barred 9 month killing? Or was it just a matter of we believe abortion should be available with restrictions as to timing?

Quote:

---

Interesting tactic to change "life" to "personhood."

---

Personhood is what gives you rights under the Constitution. A "person" can have those rights taken away or even not given.

AgBQ-00 said:

---

What was voted on? Was it no holds barred 9 month killing? Or was it just a matter of we believe abortion should be available with restrictions as to timing?

---

The Kansas vote was about whether or not the judiciary (Kansas Supreme Court) can decide that abortion is a right or if the voters / legislative branch should decide.

"A vote for the Value Them Both Amendment would affirm there is no Kansas constitutional right to abortion or to require the government funding of abortion, and would reserve to the people of Kansas, through their elected state legislators, the right to pass laws to regulate abortion."

The effect of the no vote will be that judiciary will continue legislating abortion matters in Kansas.

Quote:

---

The Kansas vote was about whether or not the judiciary (Kansas Supreme Court) can decide that abortion is a right or if the voters / legislative branch should decide.

---

And that is kind of misleading as well because any statute passed by the state legislature and signed by the Governor is still subject to challenges in the courts.

Thanks for the clarification. Seems strange to handle it that way. They just set up their state to be winner take all in who appoints the judges. "Bleeding Kansas" maybe coming again.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The Kansas vote was about whether or not the judiciary (Kansas Supreme Court) can decide that abortion is a right or if the voters / legislative branch should decide.

---

And that is kind of misleading as well because any statute passed by the state legislature and signed by the Governor is still subject to challenges in the courts.

---

Yes, but the Amendment would have clarified that the Kansas constitution doesn't guarantee a right to abortion. Currently the Kansas Supreme Court says that it does.

So that clarification would have disabled the Supreme Court from overturning moderate legislative restrictions to abortion on the basis that it is a guaranteed right under the constitution.

Being that there isn't a whole lot to do in this state, they tend to get a little crazy here. It's been getting worse.

Serotonin said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The Kansas vote was about whether or not the judiciary (Kansas Supreme Court) can decide that abortion is a right or if the voters / legislative branch should decide.

---

And that is kind of misleading as well because any statute passed by the state legislature and signed by the Governor is still subject to challenges in the courts.

---

Yes, but the Amendment would have clarified that the Kansas constitution doesn't guarantee a right to abortion. Currently the Kansas Supreme Court says that it does.

So that clarification would have disabled the Supreme Court from overturning moderate legislative restrictions to abortion on the basis that it is a guaranteed right under the constitution.

---

When was the last time the state constitution was amended?

the only thing that determines whether or not its a clump of cells or a baby is if the mom wants it or not.

It's how Crissy Teagan can both be pro-abortion, and also mourn the loss of her clump of cells that she miscarried for likes on Instagram.

Hope this helps.

It would have also allowed the legislature to completely ban abortion in the state. Which pretty much every other replication led legislature is in the process of doing.

So short of Republicans putting in writing what restrictions they planned on and asking the voters to approve that, it seems kind of reasonable that people thought they would go for a full ban.

aggiehawg said:

---

Serotonin said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The Kansas vote was about whether or not the judiciary (Kansas Supreme Court) can decide that abortion is a right or if the voters / legislative branch should decide.

---

And that is kind of misleading as well because any statute passed by the state legislature and signed by the Governor is still subject to challenges in the courts.

---

Yes, but the Amendment would have clarified that the Kansas constitution doesn't guarantee a right to abortion. Currently the Kansas Supreme Court says that it does.

So that clarification would have disabled the Supreme Court from overturning moderate legislative restrictions to abortion on the basis that it is a guaranteed right under the constitution.

---

When was the last time the state constitution was amended?

---

2019.
It's been amended 98 times according to this site.

https://ballotpedia.org/Kansas_Constitution

Malibu2 said:

---

No it is not human life. Human DNA, sure, but it is not a human being. When in Planck time does it become a human being? That's not entirely answerable but it does have a specific moment I suppose for each individual. I've usually taken a position that the ability to suffer and feel pain is the correct line in the sand of when you have crossed a threshold into personhood that requires legal protection.

---

So blood cells are life but a fertilized egg isn't. Interesting take.

Well it is clearly a functioning biological organism, alive, the question is whether or not is entitled to the legal protections in society. The quality of self replicating human DNA does not satisfy the requirements of legal personhood.

Malibu2 said:

---

Well it is clearly ... alive, the question is whether or not is entitled to stay alive

---

FIFY

if you really want to kill something you just admitted was alive, you already figured out you're going to need to fool yourself with some made up definition for "personhood" to negotiate your lack of morality with yourself. ...so go ahead.. tell yourself, it's alive, but it probably doesn't have personhood yet, so let's crush its skull, stop its heartbeat, extract it, and throw it in the garbage can.

A red blood cell also fits my definition of something that is a life but it's not entitled to legal protection. The rest is bad faith arguments by you that I will not respond to. I'm happy to debate positions that I actually hold and have stated on this thread.

ETA: Emoticon error. I meant to have the plain text one.

Serotonin said:

---

coupland boy said:

---

Will it be put to a vote in Texas?

---

In Kansas the Supreme Court has decided invented that abortion is a right. The purpose of this vote was to make abortion a legislative issue, not a judicial issue.

In Texas it's already a legislative issue so no vote is needed. If voters don't like the abortion restrictions implemented then they can vote for different legislators.

---

FIFY

Malibu2 said:

---

A red blood cell also fits my definition of something that is a life but it's not entitled to legal protection. The rest is bad faith arguments by you that I will not respond to. I'm happy to debate positions that I actually hold and have stated on this thread.

ETA: Emoticon error. I meant to have the plain text one.

---

I'm unaware of any definition of life that includes individual cells that are incapable of self-supporting themselves through metabolism or reproducing. There is some hilarity of claiming someone else is arguing in bad faith while simultaneously claiming a red blood cell fits the definition of life. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and suggest you go take a middle school biology class.

S540841 said:

---

people were mad when Trump won but there's wasn't widespread claims in the Democratic Party that the election was rigged. We didn't storm the capital to try and kill the VP and members of Congress. We didn't complain every election is illegitimate.

---

It's always amusing that the soft brained continue to post this. The only armed people were the capital police and the FBI.

Of course liberals are silent when you bring up the occupy protests and other nonsense that has occurred in the capital and other gov. buildings and there were certainly no hearings after those incidents.

leachfan said:

---

coupland boy said:

---

Will it be put to a vote in Texas?

---

I wish it would so it can be settled instead of us having to choose a republican or democrat based on that sole issue.

---

Same. As Supreme Court decisions go it was an overreach. Now it's been kicked back to the states where it should be so let everyone decide. I doubt that it will be put to the voters because we know how that will turn out. And it won't be close.

Malibu2 said:

---

Well it is clearly a functioning biological organism, alive, the question is whether or not is entitled to the legal protections in society. The quality of self replicating human DNA does not satisfy the requirements of legal personhood.

---

So it's a human but not a person…sounds familiar.

. a mosquito is alive. a cockroach is alive. the fungus between your toes is alive. an amoeba is alive. a virus like SARS-CoV-2 is alive. ...the baby you conceived by engaging in coitus with your partner - you know - the act that helps procreate your species - that "live" thing used to mean a little bit more to humans.

AgBQ-00 said:

---

What was voted on? Was it no holds barred 9 month killing? Or was it just a matter of we believe abortion should be available with restrictions as to timing?

---

I mean, read the thread. It's spelled out in the first two pages.

Because of the no vote, any and all laws about abortion in KS can no be challenged, and overturned by the KS SC. So yes, late term can be A - OK along with any other type of abortion.

Siri put a life instead of alive. But thank you for your concern about my lack of foundation in basic biology and for adding something productive to the conversation.

amercer said:

---

It would have also allowed the legislature to completely ban abortion in the state. Which pretty much every other replication led legislature is in the process of doing.

So short of Republicans putting in writing what restrictions they planned on and asking the voters to approve that, it seems kind of reasonable that people thought they would go for a full ban.

---

As much as I am on the yes side (I guess thats obvious), yes, the KS legislature could have enacted a full on ban on abortion in KS.

Not sure if they have enough of a majority to overturn a Gov. Veto (Current gov. is Dem and up for election this Nov.)