# Federal judge blocks Texas restrictive abortion law, says women faced 'irreparable harm'



## NewsVine_Mariyam

It seems to me that there should be repercussions of some type when laws are passed that are blatently and knowingly unconstitutional because they deprive people rights and allow harm to them while they are in effect even though they are eventually overturned or ruled to be unconstitutional.

There is a member here on U.S. Message board who repeatedly made the assertion that no woman is allowed to have an unlawful abortion, completely overlooking that the act was only recently made unlawful and now the court is saying that the law was wrong.  Well what about the people who have been harmed while this "law" was in effect?

How would you feel if you were a gun owner and someone was able to pass a law, knowing it would not pass constitutional muster and would be overturned eventually, that made ownership of all semi-automatic pistols unlawful?  You didn't go out and buy one, you were already the legal owner of the semi-auto but know because of someone else's angst, you're suddenly a criminal even though you and they both know that this new law is bogus.  Nonetheless, it's currently the law and while it stands you're a criminal unless you get rid of your semi-autos.

See how that works?

Federal judge blocks Texas restrictive abortion law, says women faced 'irreparable harm'


> AUSTIN – A federal judge late Wednesday temporarily blocked enforcement of a Texas abortion law that effectively bans the procedure, siding with the federal government in a lawsuit over the ban.
> 
> In a 113-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman of Austin said the law is an "offensive deprivation of such an important right" and said state actors, including judges and court clerks, can no longer enforce its provisions.
> 
> "From the moment (the law) went into effect, women have been unlawfully prevented from exercising control over their lives in ways that are protected by the Constitution," Pitman wrote.
> 
> Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed the legislation, known as the "fetal heartbeat" bill, into law in May — forcing the issue of reproductive rights back into the political spotlight. The law bans abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected, usually around six weeks of pregnancy and before many people realize they are pregnant. There are no exemptions in cases of rape or incest.
> 
> Abortion providers say the legislation would restrict 85% of abortion procedures in Texas. The law is one of the most direct challenges on the boundaries of the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 landmark Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.
> 
> Similar six-week abortion laws in Georgia, Kentucky and other states have been blocked by federal courts.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Owning a gun is a Constitutional RIGHT.......show us where the right to murder the unborn is in the Constitution

See how that works?


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

And another thing........

Your tax dollars never helped anyone get a gun......


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

All that said........

If abortion is immoral and against God's will....then those who get recreational abortions will pay.

If......there's a God that cares that is.


----------



## candycorn

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> It seems to me that there should be repercussions of some type when laws are passed that are blatently and knowingly unconstitutional because they deprive people rights and allow harm to them while they are in effect even though they are eventually overturned or ruled to be unconstitutional.
> 
> There is a member here on U.S. Message board who repeatedly made the assertion that no woman is allowed to have an unlawful abortion, completely overlooking that the act was only recently made unlawful and now the court is saying that the law was wrong.  Well what about the people who have been harmed while this "law" was in effect?
> 
> How would you feel if you were a gun owner and someone was able to pass a law, knowing it would not pass constitutional muster and would be overturned eventually, that made ownership of all semi-automatic pistols unlawful?  You didn't go out and buy one, you were already the legal owner of the semi-auto but know because of someone else's angst, you're suddenly a criminal even though you and they both know that this new law is bogus.  Nonetheless, it's currently the law and while it stands you're a criminal unless you get rid of your semi-autos.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Federal judge blocks Texas restrictive abortion law, says women faced 'irreparable harm'


A win for the good guys.


----------



## Michael1985

I have to ask why any state would dare to try this when abortion measure after abortion measure has been struck down by the courts in recent years. It was only a matter of time before it happened with this one too.


----------



## Calypso Jones

Oh my gosh.   We don't want to cause irreparable harm to a woman's chosen method of birth control NOW DO WE??

What about the irreparable and I DO mean IRREPARABLE harm to the child she is carrying?  The child, you know...the child that makes this woman a mother??    You'd think a mother would LOVE her child?  well.   I guess not nowadays.    We're into that Me Me Me culture.


----------



## Calypso Jones

Makes me wonder.     Women who've done this...if they're cold hearted unrepentent murderous ones,  they encourage the same act for other women...cause.... psychotic behavior loves company.


----------



## Moonglow

BasicHumanUnit said:


> And another thing........
> 
> Your tax dollars never helped anyone get a gun......


I bought firearms when employed by the army.


----------



## night_son

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> It seems to me that there should be repercussions of some type when laws are passed that are blatently and knowingly unconstitutional because they deprive people rights and allow harm to them while they are in effect even though they are eventually overturned or ruled to be unconstitutional.
> 
> There is a member here on U.S. Message board who repeatedly made the assertion that no woman is allowed to have an unlawful abortion, completely overlooking that the act was only recently made unlawful and now the court is saying that the law was wrong.  Well what about the people who have been harmed while this "law" was in effect?
> 
> How would you feel if you were a gun owner and someone was able to pass a law, knowing it would not pass constitutional muster and would be overturned eventually, that made ownership of all semi-automatic pistols unlawful?  You didn't go out and buy one, you were already the legal owner of the semi-auto but know because of someone else's angst, you're suddenly a criminal even though you and they both know that this new law is bogus.  Nonetheless, it's currently the law and while it stands you're a criminal unless you get rid of your semi-autos.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Federal judge blocks Texas restrictive abortion law, says women faced 'irreparable harm'




What you pro-abortion _people_ always fail to grasp, and I use the noun "people" quite loosely when _ghoul_ would be the more appropriate one to describe you, is that _someone_ put the idea in your broken little minds that a child developing in the womb was inhuman and thus you have the right to slaughter it. Do you know who that someone was? Do all you feminist self-aggrandizing inhumanoids have any idea at whose altar you worship when you champion abortion? Allow me to enlighten you. You and all other postmodern "people" who worship abortion do so because a severely mentally ill old white man forwarded the idea centuries ago. That's right . . . the cry your kind make to the heavens, "my body, my choice" was given to you by an ancient, long dead white guy who, wait for it, told you what to do with your body and the innocent life developing inside it. His name was Le Marquis de Sade and nearly every word he wrote shit on women, their bodies and their self-worth. HE is your god of abortion. And old white man long gone down to hell. He put the idea of aborting the unborn in your minds. HE told you what to do with your bodies. Oh the irony . . . 

Your bodies belong not to you, oh no, you've freely devoted them, surrendered them to Le Marquis de Sade. In your most heated state of resistance to the "evil patriarchy" you are still serving it . . .


----------



## cnm

BasicHumanUnit said:


> And another thing........
> 
> Your tax dollars never helped anyone get a gun......


Jesus.


----------



## Grumblenuts

BasicHumanUnit said:


> If abortion is immoral and against God's will....then those who get recreational abortions will pay.
> 
> If......there's a God that cares that is.


And..

If abortion is moral and consistent with God's will....then those who get recreational abortions will "pay" nothing.

If......there's a God that cares that is.

And..

If......there's no God..

Lots of immoral, meanspirited jerks shall continue trying to force their will upon all women who persist in making up their own minds about such private matters.


----------



## BULLDOG

Michael1985 said:


> I have to ask why any state would dare to try this when abortion measure after abortion measure has been struck down by the courts in recent years. It was only a matter of time before it happened with this one too.


They did it to keep the crazies stirred up and involved.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Michael1985 said:


> I have to ask why any state would dare to try this when abortion measure after abortion measure has been struck down by the courts in recent years. It was only a matter of time before it happened with this one too.


"There is a special mystique to Texas. Texans represent many things to the uninitiated: We are bigger than life in our boots and Stetsons, rugged individualists whose two-steppin' has achieved world-wide acclaim, and we were the first to define hospitality." -- Ann Richards

▲That said▼

"You can put lipstick and earrings on a hog and call it Monique, but it's still a pig." -- Ann Richards


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Owning a gun is a Constitutional RIGHT.......show us where the right to murder the unborn is in the Constitution
> 
> See how that works?


Abortion doesn't involve murder.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

BasicHumanUnit said:


> All that said........
> 
> If abortion is immoral and against God's will....then those who get recreational abortions will pay.
> 
> If......there's a God that cares that is.


What is a "recreational" abortion?


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

night_son said:


> Your bodies belong not to you


Are you male or female?

And I'm not "pro-abortion".


----------



## cnm

BasicHumanUnit said:


> then those who get recreational abortions will pay.


Is that a saying of the Texan Taliban?


----------



## Lysistrata

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Owning a gun is a Constitutional RIGHT.......show us where the right to murder the unborn is in the Constitution
> 
> See how that works?


Having an abortion is not murdering the unborn. Some fertilized eggs develop into human beings and many don't. One of my aunts carried a zygote/fetus three different times until the fourth time, a living child resulted. You are just angry at the idea that a woman would make the decision whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term. You just want pregnancy to be a punishment for women who have sex because you have some freakish fear about women exercising their sexuality. Remember that pregnancy is the process of manufacturing a human body. Until the process is completed, there is no human being.


----------



## Calypso Jones

cnm if you can't tell the difference between national security and killing a baby for purposes of birth control then sorry for you.


----------



## M14 Shooter

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> How would you feel if you were a gun owner and someone was able to pass a law, knowing it would not pass constitutional muster...


Like in CA NY NJ MD and HI?
Happens all the time.
What should the repercussions be?


----------



## jbrownson0831

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> It seems to me that there should be repercussions of some type when laws are passed that are blatently and knowingly unconstitutional because they deprive people rights and allow harm to them while they are in effect even though they are eventually overturned or ruled to be unconstitutional.
> 
> There is a member here on U.S. Message board who repeatedly made the assertion that no woman is allowed to have an unlawful abortion, completely overlooking that the act was only recently made unlawful and now the court is saying that the law was wrong.  Well what about the people who have been harmed while this "law" was in effect?
> 
> How would you feel if you were a gun owner and someone was able to pass a law, knowing it would not pass constitutional muster and would be overturned eventually, that made ownership of all semi-automatic pistols unlawful?  You didn't go out and buy one, you were already the legal owner of the semi-auto but know because of someone else's angst, you're suddenly a criminal even though you and they both know that this new law is bogus.  Nonetheless, it's currently the law and while it stands you're a criminal unless you get rid of your semi-autos.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Federal judge blocks Texas restrictive abortion law, says women faced 'irreparable harm'


One is murder and one is gun possession.


----------



## Calypso Jones

On second thought i've changed my mind on the current state of our military.   With Biden's gift of 85B to the taliban in our machines of war..that makes us the biggest supporter of terrorist activity in the world.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> It seems to me that there should be repercussions of some type when laws are passed that are blatently and knowingly unconstitutional because they deprive people rights and allow harm to them while they are in effect even though they are eventually overturned or ruled to be unconstitutional.
> 
> There is a member here on U.S. Message board who repeatedly made the assertion that no woman is allowed to have an unlawful abortion, completely overlooking that the act was only recently made unlawful and now the court is saying that the law was wrong.  Well what about the people who have been harmed while this "law" was in effect?
> 
> How would you feel if you were a gun owner and someone was able to pass a law, knowing it would not pass constitutional muster and would be overturned eventually, that made ownership of all semi-automatic pistols unlawful?  You didn't go out and buy one, you were already the legal owner of the semi-auto but know because of someone else's angst, you're suddenly a criminal even though you and they both know that this new law is bogus.  Nonetheless, it's currently the law and while it stands you're a criminal unless you get rid of your semi-autos.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Federal judge blocks Texas restrictive abortion law, says women faced 'irreparable harm'


The judge is correct. 

The Texas anti-privacy rights law is clearly unconstitutional.


----------



## jbrownson0831

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The judge is correct.
> 
> The Texas anti-privacy rights law is clearly unconstitutional.


Dims hate those anti murder laws.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Owning a gun is a Constitutional RIGHT.......show us where the right to murder the unborn is in the Constitution
> 
> See how that works?


This is a lie.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> What is a "recreational" abortion?


A rightwing lie.


----------



## M14 Shooter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The judge is correct.
> The Texas anti-privacy rights law is clearly unconstitutional.


You know this is not true
You know a law is constitutional until ruled otherwise.
Why are you lying?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Are you male or female?
> 
> And I'm not "pro-abortion".


No one is 'pro abortion.'


----------



## jbrownson0831

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is a lie.


Baloney





C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No one is 'pro abortion.'


Dimmers are.....pro convenience murders, back on the dance floor


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

BasicHumanUnit said:


> All that said........
> 
> If abortion is immoral and against God's will....then those who get recreational abortions will pay.
> 
> If......there's a God that cares that is.


This is an example of the arrogant authoritarianism common to the religious right.


----------



## M14 Shooter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is an example of the arrogant authoritarianism common to the religious right.


You know a law is constitutional until ruled otherwise.
Why are you lying?


----------



## Slade3200

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Owning a gun is a Constitutional RIGHT.......show us where the right to murder the unborn is in the Constitution
> 
> See how that works?


A woman’s right for life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is absolutely covered in the constitution. I don’t see where the constitution gives the government the right to tell a woman what she can or can’t do with her own body and medical decisions… can you show me that?


----------



## jbrownson0831

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is an example of the arrogant authoritarianism common to the religious right.


Yes we need to be more like those murdering Dimmers


----------



## Lysistrata

night_son said:


> What you pro-abortion _people_ always fail to grasp, and I use the noun "people" quite loosely when _ghoul_ would be the more appropriate one to describe you, is that _someone_ put the idea in your broken little minds that a child developing in the womb was inhuman and thus you have the right to slaughter it. Do you know who that someone was? Do all you feminist self-aggrandizing inhumanoids have any idea at whose altar you worship when you champion abortion? Allow me to enlighten you. You and all other postmodern "people" who worship abortion do so because a severely mentally ill old white man forwarded the idea centuries ago. That's right . . . the cry your kind make to the heavens, "my body, my choice" was given to you by an ancient, long dead white guy who, wait for it, told you what to do with your body and the innocent life developing inside it. His name was Le Marquis de Sade and nearly every word he wrote shit on women, their bodies and their self-worth. HE is your god of abortion. And old white man long gone down to hell. He put the idea of aborting the unborn in your minds. HE told you what to do with your bodies. Oh the irony . . .
> 
> Your bodies belong not to you, oh no, you've freely devoted them, surrendered them to Le Marquis de Sade. In your most heated state of resistance to the "evil patriarchy" you are still serving it . . .


Your reference to the Marquis de Sade is totally moronic. Who put this crazy theory in your head?

If someone puts "A" and "B" in front of you and tells you to pick one or the other, without extolling the virtues of either or denigrating either of the choices, is that person "pro" A or B?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Owning a gun is a Constitutional RIGHT.......show us where the right to murder the unborn is in the Constitution
> 
> See how that works?


We see how the dishonest right works: demagoguery and lies.

Abortion is not ‘murder.’

There is both a right to privacy and a right to possess a firearm.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

BasicHumanUnit said:


> All that said........
> 
> If abortion is immoral and against God's will....then those who get recreational abortions will pay.
> 
> If......there's a God that cares that is.


Having nothing whatsoever with the thread topic.

Having nothing whatsoever to do with law, the Constitution, or the right to privacy.

Subjective, personal beliefs and religious dogma have no bearing on the protected liberties of citizens which prohibit government excess and overreach.


----------



## M14 Shooter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Having nothing whatsoever with the thread topic.
> Having nothing whatsoever to do with law, the Constitution, or the right to privacy.
> Subjective, personal beliefs and religious dogma have no bearing on the protected liberties of citizens which prohibit government excess and overreach.


And yet, you agree:
This law is constitutional.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

jbrownson0831 said:


> One is murder and one is gun possession.


Our government punishes murderers with the loss of their liberty or their lives upon conviction.

If abortion is murder why is no one then ever arrested, convicted and sentenced to life or death for having provided one or having one?


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

M14 Shooter said:


> Like in CA NY NJ MD and HI?
> Happens all the time.
> What should the repercussions be?


A statutory cause of action and statutory damages would be a good start, in my opinion.

I am not familiar with the laws in the states you listed since I am not a resident of any of them, therefore I haven't kept up with what's going on in them, although it would not surprise me in the least to discover that they're doing this.  If I recall correctly, gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are being made unlawful in several states while that has been the law in California for a long as I can remember.

California, Maryland, New Jersey and New York and you're right, Hawaii as well, have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

M14 Shooter said:


> You know a law is constitutional until ruled otherwise.


That doesn't make sense, it can't be both.

If it were truly constitutional it wouldn't be ruled unconstitutional.


----------



## Grumblenuts

If it were truly constipation it wouldn't be called incontinent.

_The average case backlog for state and local courts across the United States increased by about one-third amid the COVID-19 pandemic _


----------



## M14 Shooter

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> A statutory cause of action and statutory damages would be a good start, in my opinion.


Gun owners should sue the states in question for damages?


----------



## M14 Shooter

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> That doesn't make sense, it can't be both.


Clayton will explain.
Since the law was enacted, he's been avoiding the issue, because he knows the law is constitutional - and doesn't want to admit it.
He knows this, because it has not been ruled unconstitutional, and he know any law is constitutional until ruled otherwise.
Ask him.   Mention "Caroline Products" and "footnote 4".


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

M14 Shooter said:


> Clayton will explain.
> Since the law was enacted, he's been avoiding the issue, because he knows the law is constitutional - and doesn't want to admit it.
> He knows this, because it has not been ruled unconstitutional, and he know any law is constitutional until ruled otherwise.
> Ask him.   Mention "Caroline Products" and "footnote 4".


If a law is ruled to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution, are you saying that until that ruling it _was _constitutional?


----------



## theHawk

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> It seems to me that there should be repercussions of some type when laws are passed that are blatently and knowingly unconstitutional because they deprive people rights and allow harm to them while they are in effect even though they are eventually overturned or ruled to be unconstitutional.
> 
> There is a member here on U.S. Message board who repeatedly made the assertion that no woman is allowed to have an unlawful abortion, completely overlooking that the act was only recently made unlawful and now the court is saying that the law was wrong.  Well what about the people who have been harmed while this "law" was in effect?
> 
> How would you feel if you were a gun owner and someone was able to pass a law, knowing it would not pass constitutional muster and would be overturned eventually, that made ownership of all semi-automatic pistols unlawful?  You didn't go out and buy one, you were already the legal owner of the semi-auto but know because of someone else's angst, you're suddenly a criminal even though you and they both know that this new law is bogus.  Nonetheless, it's currently the law and while it stands you're a criminal unless you get rid of your semi-autos.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Federal judge blocks Texas restrictive abortion law, says women faced 'irreparable harm'



Texas fetal heartbeat abortion law is back in effect.

Too bad for the Satanic cultists.









						Texas 'fetal heartbeat' abortion law reinstated by appeals court ruling
					

A federal appeals court reinstated Texas’ controversial six-week abortion ban on Friday night, days after a lower court suspended the Republican-backed law.




					www.google.com


----------



## Stann

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> It seems to me that there should be repercussions of some type when laws are passed that are blatently and knowingly unconstitutional because they deprive people rights and allow harm to them while they are in effect even though they are eventually overturned or ruled to be unconstitutional.
> 
> There is a member here on U.S. Message board who repeatedly made the assertion that no woman is allowed to have an unlawful abortion, completely overlooking that the act was only recently made unlawful and now the court is saying that the law was wrong.  Well what about the people who have been harmed while this "law" was in effect?
> 
> How would you feel if you were a gun owner and someone was able to pass a law, knowing it would not pass constitutional muster and would be overturned eventually, that made ownership of all semi-automatic pistols unlawful?  You didn't go out and buy one, you were already the legal owner of the semi-auto but know because of someone else's angst, you're suddenly a criminal even though you and they both know that this new law is bogus.  Nonetheless, it's currently the law and while it stands you're a criminal unless you get rid of your semi-autos.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Federal judge blocks Texas restrictive abortion law, says women faced 'irreparable harm'


The best repercussion would be that this goes to the Supreme Court and they finally  reach the consensus that this is a medical matter between a woman and her doctor and no person. Government entity or court has the right to interfer with their decisions. Roe vs Wade was a start but the government and the courts need to step back from it entirely now and forever. the last thing this world needs is more miles to feed, especially unwanted ones, ones that aren't even here yet. The pro-lifers complain about a few hundred thousand immigrants come across the border, good they want 40 to 60 million more people here who weren't supposed to be here in the first place. So much for their pro-life stance.


----------



## Stann

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> If a law is ruled to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution, are you saying that until that ruling it _was _constitutional?


Until that ruling it hasn't been tested in the courts. The legislation was blatantly unamerican, asking your neighbor spy on you and rewarding them to do so sounds like a Nazi law if there ever was one.


----------



## MisterBeale

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Abortion doesn't involve murder.


That's your point of view.

You should respect others and let them have their points of view...

There will never be peace or understanding in this world, nor will we find solutions, till everyone is allowed their own truth.

If you want respect and others to believe your truth, you must understand theirs.


----------



## MisterBeale

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> It seems to me that there should be repercussions of some type when laws are passed that are blatently and knowingly unconstitutional because they deprive people rights and allow harm to them while they are in effect even though they are eventually overturned or ruled to be unconstitutional.
> 
> There is a member here on U.S. Message board who repeatedly made the assertion that no woman is allowed to have an unlawful abortion, completely overlooking that the act was only recently made unlawful and now the court is saying that the law was wrong.  Well what about the people who have been harmed while this "law" was in effect?
> 
> How would you feel if you were a gun owner and someone was able to pass a law, knowing it would not pass constitutional muster and would be overturned eventually, that made ownership of all semi-automatic pistols unlawful?  You didn't go out and buy one, you were already the legal owner of the semi-auto but know because of someone else's angst, you're suddenly a criminal even though you and they both know that this new law is bogus.  Nonetheless, it's currently the law and while it stands you're a criminal unless you get rid of your semi-autos.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Federal judge blocks Texas restrictive abortion law, says women faced 'irreparable harm'


This is a temporary injunction, until there is SCOTUS review.


Talking about repercussions is, IMO, premature.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

MisterBeale said:


> That's your point of view.
> 
> You should respect others and let them have their points of view...
> 
> There will never be peace or understanding in this world, nor will we find solutions, till everyone is allowed their own truth.
> 
> If you want respect and others to believe your truth, you must understand theirs.


It's not my point of view, it's both the dictionary and legal definition of the word "murder".


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

MisterBeale said:


> This is a temporary injunction, until there is SCOTUS review.
> 
> 
> Talking about repercussions is, IMO, premature.


I wasn't referring solely about this case in reference to repercussions or more aptly restitution.


----------



## MisterBeale

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> I'm not my point of view, it's both the dictionary and legal definition of the word "murder".


Murder hinges on when one considers life to begin.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Legal definition is unlawful taking of life, Morally abortion is murder.


----------



## MisterBeale

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> I wasn't referring solely about this case in reference to repercussions or more aptly restitution.


.. .. well, I've made my POV clear else where on the forum.

I believe in the concept of federalism, and I don't like the courts dictating the law.

If you don't like the law in your state, move to one that is friendly to your POV. 

If a state passes laws that controls your body, move to one that doesn't.  If it passes too restrictive gun control for your tastes?  Move elsewhere.

Really though, comparing the two, is like comparing apples and oranges.  The right to bear arms is an explicitly named right.  The right to privacy in regards to an abortion is one that has been read into the Constitution.  Some believe that the life of a child is being murdered.

Clearly?  You do not.

I respect that.  I hope you live in a state where the majority of the citizens feel that way, and vote to keep that as a woman's choice.

OTH?  I don't understand folks that feel the need to interfere with the politics of other states.

I don't live in Texas, so?  It is none of my business, it is their choice.


NOW. . . . as to the topic of restitution?  As has been pointed out, this Texas law has, again, been reinstated, so, we shall have to, as I said, wait for that.  But, it is like trying to redress perceived wrongs of a political fight.  There are going to be causalities.  I honestly don't think there can be "restitution."  A person has to be responsible for their own life, and not blame the voters for the laws that are passed, even if they are overturned in the end.

That's just the way the ball bounces in the end.  We can't blame society for the mistakes we all make in our lives.  We have to live with them.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

MisterBeale said:


> If you want respect and others to believe your truth, you must understand theirs.


Why would you think I would desire respect from people who can't tell fact from fiction?  And are so dishonest that when they are provided with the information so that they can see for themselves that they are mistaken, they just double down on their mistaken and uninformed point of view?


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

MisterBeale said:


> Murder hinges on when one considers life to begin.


No it doesn't.  That is just what you want and think how things should work.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

MisterBeale said:


> A person has to be responsible for their own life,


You wrote this yet you support a law that allows a bunch of strangers to get involved in the lives of women who choose to terminate a pregnancy, motivated by the thought of making an easy $10,000?


----------



## Stann

MisterBeale said:


> That's your point of view.
> 
> You should respect others and let them have their points of view...
> 
> There will never be peace or understanding in this world, nor will we find solutions, till everyone is allowed their own truth.
> 
> If you want respect and others to believe your truth, you must understand theirs.


Others are more than welcome to their opinion on it that's why Roe vs Wade came into being. To protect everyone's opinion.


----------



## theHawk

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> You wrote this yet you support a law that allows a bunch of strangers to get involved in the lives of women who choose to terminate a pregnancy, motivated by the thought of making an easy $10,000?


All laws are made by “a bunch of strangers” to get involved in all of our lives.  It’s called living in a civilized society with laws.


----------



## Stann

theHawk said:


> All laws are made by “a bunch of strangers” to get involved in all of our lives.  It’s called living in a civilized society with laws.


Usually laws target criminals; that's the problem with this Texas law he creates criminals where no crime was committed, and rewards the bad behavior of money grubbing idiots to commit crimes against their fellow citizens.


----------



## iceberg

Stann said:


> Usually laws target criminals; that's the problem with this Texas law he creates criminals where no crime was committed, and rewards the bad behavior of money grubbing idiots to commit crimes against their fellow citizens.


like banning guns and making people dont turn them in to be criminals.


----------



## theHawk

Stann said:


> Usually laws target criminals; that's the problem with this Texas law he creates criminals where no crime was committed, and rewards the bad behavior of money grubbing idiots to commit crimes against their fellow citizens.


People murdering unborn babies is a crime.


----------



## rightnow909

Michael1985 said:


> I have to ask why any state would dare to try this when abortion measure after abortion measure has been struck down by the courts in recent years. It was only a matter of time before it happened with this one too.


wishful thinking?

maybe people are fed up with all the bloodshed.

How would u like to be aborted?

find out how abortions happen and then  come back and please answer that Q


----------



## rightnow909

theHawk said:


> People murdering unborn babies is a crime.


yeh, it's too bad u have to state what sshould be obvious to a 3 yr old

what a world we live in...


----------



## rightnow909

Lysistrata said:


> Having an abortion is not murdering the unborn. Some fertilized eggs develop into human beings and many don't. One of my aunts carried a zygote/fetus three different times until the fourth time, a living child resulted. You are just angry at the idea that a woman would make the decision whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term. You just want pregnancy to be a punishment for women who have sex because you have some freakish fear about women exercising their sexuality. Remember that pregnancy is the process of manufacturing a human body. Until the process is completed, there is no human being.


Trust the science

Life begins at the beginning

conception

If it is not alive, why does it grow?

If it is not human, what is it?

Equal rights for the very young


----------



## M14 Shooter

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> If a law is ruled to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution, are you saying that until that ruling it _was _constitutional?


As I said:
Clayton will explain.
If he ever develops the intellectual honesty necessary to do so.
(Just FYI:  I would not hold my breath}


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

theHawk said:


> All laws are made by “a bunch of strangers” to get involved in all of our lives.  It’s called living in a civilized society with laws.


Now you're just flat out lying, about everything in your statement above.

Laws begin their lives as bills which are basically proposed laws.  The person/people who created them are known or can be looked up and you can know which of your representatives or law makers voted in support of the law and which did not.

The people doing this work are in most cases voted into office by us, so they are not the strangers to which I refer but I'm pretty sure you know that.

Your so called civilized society has nothing to do with anyone who wants to do so being able to drag people *who have not harmed them *into court and walk away with a $10,000 judgment because they oppose abortion.  There is certainly nothing civilized about that nor does that help foster a civilized society.

On the other hand, their ow lives better be beyond reproach because they're starting a fight that they probably don't have the foresight to even wonder what could possibly happen to them if they choose to go down this road.  The courts are the not the place to try to quietly resolve a grievance but as we already know, that's why they chose this venue, so that everything ends up in the public domain.

There is going to be a lot of fallout from this.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

theHawk said:


> People murdering unborn babies is a crime.


Where are the murder convictions then?  Even this new law doesn't convict anyone of a crime, it only involves money.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Once again the Law once made it legal to own people and to kill them if you wanted to. Morally abortion is murder.


----------



## Stann

theHawk said:


> People murdering unborn babies is a crime.


That is your opinion, you're entitled to it. BUT you can't expect the rest of us to live by your opinions.


----------



## Stann

RetiredGySgt said:


> Once again the Law once made it legal to own people and to kill them if you wanted to. Morally abortion is murder.


At 6 weeks a human embryo isn't even big enough to be classified as a fetus. It's 1/2 inch long, weighs a 1/4 ounce and looks more like a deformed tadpole. the tail composing 1/3 of the body length. There is a newly created primitive heart because the cells have multiplied and are differentiating into tissues and beginning to form organs. there are two osceoli where the eyes will form and two buds where the arms will form. You cannot in all honesty call that a human child.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Stann said:


> At 6 weeks a human embryo isn't even big enough to be classified as a fetus. It's 1/2 inch long, weighs a 1/4 ounce and looks more like a deformed tadpole. the tail composing 1/3 of the body length. There is a newly created primitive heart because the cells have multiplied and are differentiating into tissues and beginning to form organs. there are two osceoli where the eyes will form and two buds where the arms will form. You cannot in all honesty call that a human child.


I already said I would compromise and 20 weeks is the cut off. But to your question yes it is as ir will continue if not aborted to develop,,, and what EXACTLY does it become? Why a baby of course. You condone the indiscriminate killing of children for convenience sake.


----------



## Stann

RetiredGySgt said:


> I already said I would compromise and 20 weeks is the cut off. But to your question yes it is as ir will continue if not aborted to develop,,, and what EXACTLY does it become? Why a baby of course. You condone the indiscriminate killing of children for convenience sake.


It is a potential you're in bed only got potential is there. Many disasters to prevent it from becoming a human Boomer natural and otherwise. The pro-life people are pitting the rights of a real existing person against those of a potential person. Which should be given priority in your opinion ?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Stann said:


> It is a potential you're in bed only got potential is there. Many disasters to prevent it from becoming a human Boomer natural and otherwise. The pro-life people are pitting the rights of a real existing person against those of a potential person. Which should be given priority in your opinion ?


The mother can have an abortion after 20 weeks if it is a medical necessity no other reason.


----------



## Stann

RetiredGySgt said:


> The mother can have an abortion after 20 weeks if it is a medical necessity no other reason.


I'm sorry, only a physician should be deciding that that's some politician not some Court. They all need to stay out of a person's medical care. The world is already overpopulated, in a few short years same cover could be forcing people to have abortions if they are granted. Power now. No man in his right mind would let the government control his body, but women are a different story ? I don't think so. That's just wrong.


----------



## Unkotare

Stann said:


> .... The world is already overpopulated,.....


NO, it's NOT.


----------



## Unkotare

Stann said:


> ...... No man in his right mind would let the government control his body, .....


We already do.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Y


Stann said:


> I'm sorry, only a physician should be deciding that that's some politician not some Court. They all need to stay out of a person's medical care. The world is already overpopulated, in a few short years same cover could be forcing people to have abortions if they are granted. Power now. No man in his right mind would let the government control his body, but women are a different story ? I don't think so. That's just wrong.


You are part of the problem advocating unrestricted abortion to the day before delivery. At 20 weeks the baby can live outside the womb unless it is a medical emergency no abortion should occur after that date.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Unkotare said:


> NO, it's NOT.


With trees, no. With people, plastics, and concrete. Yes, and talk is truly cheap.


----------



## Unkotare

Grumblenuts said:


> With trees, no. With people, plastics, and concrete. Yes, and talk is truly cheap.


The false crisis of 'overpopulation' is a myth that some dimwits were served as children and just can't let go of.


----------



## Stann

Unkotare said:


> NO, it's NOT.


The ideal world human population for a planet this size and with these resources is between 1.5 to 2 billion maximum. We are approaching eight billion. I'd call that overdone.


----------



## Unkotare

We’ve worried about overpopulation for centuries. And we’ve always been wrong.
					

Earth’s population trends, explained.




					www.vox.com


----------



## Unkotare

Stann said:


> The ideal world human population for a planet this size and with these resources is between 1.5 to 2 billion maximum. .....


Bullshit.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Unkotare said:


> The false crisis of 'overpopulation' is a myth that some dimwits were served as children and just can't let go of.


So you like eliminating perfectly serviceable, terse, scientific descriptors? In this case one for having an unsustainably high quantity of a particular species -or- piss poor biodiversity? Language police much? Yes, _overpopulation_ --  when not dimwittedly being conflated with unrelated things such as _national origin, race, or ethnicity --_ is a fine term. Deal with it.


----------



## SweetSue92

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> It seems to me that there should be repercussions of some type when laws are passed that are blatently and knowingly unconstitutional because they deprive people rights and allow harm to them while they are in effect even though they are eventually overturned or ruled to be unconstitutional.
> 
> There is a member here on U.S. Message board who repeatedly made the assertion that no woman is allowed to have an unlawful abortion, completely overlooking that the act was only recently made unlawful and now the court is saying that the law was wrong.  Well what about the people who have been harmed while this "law" was in effect?
> 
> How would you feel if you were a gun owner and someone was able to pass a law, knowing it would not pass constitutional muster and would be overturned eventually, that made ownership of all semi-automatic pistols unlawful?  You didn't go out and buy one, you were already the legal owner of the semi-auto but know because of someone else's angst, you're suddenly a criminal even though you and they both know that this new law is bogus.  Nonetheless, it's currently the law and while it stands you're a criminal unless you get rid of your semi-autos.





NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> See how that works?
> 
> Federal judge blocks Texas restrictive abortion law, says women faced 'irreparable harm'



Abortion is a lamentable evil that disproportionately harms the African-American community. 

What a tragedy


----------



## SweetSue92

Unkotare said:


> Bullshit.



If you ask them "Should we eliminate people? Who?" these ghouls would have a ready answer, that's for sure. And it would never be people like them. 

It's the true evil.


----------



## iceberg

Stann said:


> I'm sorry, only a physician should be deciding that that's some politician not some Court. They all need to stay out of a person's medical care. The world is already overpopulated, in a few short years same cover could be forcing people to have abortions if they are granted. Power now. No man in his right mind would let the government control his body, but women are a different story ? I don't think so. That's just wrong.


great. stay out of my vaccine status.


----------



## colfax_m

iceberg said:


> great. stay out of my vaccine status.


Only if you agree to keep your vaccine status off of people's property who don't want you around.


----------



## Grumblenuts

> There are many humane and non-coercive strategies that the world can adopt to reduce the growing impact that our numbers are creating. These measures use education (especially of young women), family planning, and access to contraception, and they focus on allowing women to make their own choice about how many children they have. This is something we need to discuss and act on. Population is not the only key problem humanity faces, and we have here only touched on its terrible twin – overconsumption. However, the two are entwined and must be solved concurrently.


----------



## rightnow909

Stann said:


> The ideal world human population for a planet this size and with these resources is between 1.5 to 2 billion maximum. We are approaching eight billion. I'd call that overdone.


so let's kill all the worthless people like Hitler did?

whatever.

you will volunteer to go first, right?


----------



## Tumblin Tumbleweed

Stann said:


> The ideal world human population for a planet this size and with these resources is between 1.5 to 2 billion maximum. We are approaching eight billion. I'd call that overdone.


 What do you base that assertion upon?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Fight over-population denial
					

I first met people who denied the population problem in 1994 at the International Conference on Population and Development.            They supported their claim that there was no population problem w...




					www.durangoherald.com
				





> Indeed, not only could we all not fit into Texas for any period of time, but also we don’t really fit into Earth. To be sustainable, with our current population and level of consumption, we would need 1.7 times the land area available to us. We have overdrawn on our global savings account in order to enjoy our consumptive lifestyle.
> 
> We can already see the effects of overpopulation and overconsumption. Perhaps most evident is climate change. Land is eroding, fisheries are depleted and toxic chemicals are ubiquitous. Furthermore, we are killing off other species at terrifying rates – at least 1,000 times normal. Although the Ecological Footprint is an excellent tool for comparing what people are using with what is available, it has a major limitation. It does not leave any resources for other species.


----------



## iceberg

colfax_m said:


> Only if you agree to keep your vaccine status off of people's property who don't want you around.


when i get to your private property, i'll make a note of it.

but you and one mindset doesn't get to set the standards for us all. the effort to do so with lie after lie is bullshit.


----------



## Esdraelon

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> What is a "recreational" abortion?


That one is easy.  It's when a life is snuffed out for no other reason than the convenience of not being bothered with contraception.  Abortion has BECOME contraception in some twisted way.  Every life will require an accounting.  We ALL will face judgment, each in our own time.


----------



## Esdraelon

Lysistrata said:


> Having an abortion is not murdering the unborn. Some fertilized eggs develop into human beings and many don't. One of my aunts carried a zygote/fetus three different times until the fourth time, a living child resulted. You are just angry at the idea that a woman would make the decision whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term. You just want pregnancy to be a punishment for women who have sex because you have some freakish fear about women exercising their sexuality. Remember that pregnancy is the process of manufacturing a human body. Until the process is completed, there is no human being.


This is America and it seems the tide is turning on this issue.  Texans disagree with your views and the actions of this one judge have been set aside and the threshold for this procedure now ends when the heartbeat begins.


----------



## colfax_m

iceberg said:


> when i get to your private property, i'll make a note of it.
> 
> but you and one mindset doesn't get to set the standards for us all. the effort to do so with lie after lie is bullshit.


Sure buddy. 

And we’ve seen plenty of people melting down because they can’t follow the rules.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ESDRAELON said:


> This is America and it seems the tide is turning on this issue.  Texans disagree with your views and the actions of this one judge have been set aside and the threshold for this procedure now ends when the heartbeat begins.


..or that fluttering sound or something..

Yep. Seems this minority of religious zealots have gathered their shit together and chucked it at the rest of us again.. It's like they just don't care.. Not really.. Oh sure, they always pretend really hard like they do and throw tons of money at it..  But, well, you know.. As any true, red blooded American should know..  This nation was built upon majority rule.. We certainly can and do listen to, tolerate, and accommodate mountains of minority nutbaggery* here.. But, it's the women, you see.. They comprise like half of us.. You'll never convince them to give up Roe en masse.. There's far more to life than accumulation of property.. Even a severely jaundiced evangelical should understand that by now..

(*) - just noting no spell check warning on that, lol


----------



## iceberg

colfax_m said:


> Sure buddy.
> 
> And we’ve seen plenty of people melting down because they can’t follow the rules.


and we've seen plenty of people who make rules for others then refuse to follow them.

people in the end really don't give a shit about safety, they care about control as a substitute illusion. for example, if you go out and are not wearing a mask, people would come up to you and scream you must comply or you put them at risk. never mind simply getting close put said person at said risk.

if it was fear of corona or need for safety, you simply stay away from the danger.


----------



## colfax_m

iceberg said:


> and we've seen plenty of people who make rules for others then refuse to follow them.
> 
> people in the end really don't give a shit about safety, they care about control as a substitute illusion. for example, if you go out and are not wearing a mask, people would come up to you and scream you must comply or you put them at risk. never mind simply getting close put said person at said risk.
> 
> if it was fear of corona or need for safety, you simply stay away from the danger.


You’re so cynical. 

It would be nice if we could just treat each other like humans again. People in the end really just are so selfish and childish that they can’t do something as simple as wear a mask. 

And no, “simply” stay away is a childish strategy. It’s simply not feasible.


----------



## Stann

Unkotare said:


> Bullshit.


I'm no expert but that's what the experts said.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Stann said:


> I'm no expert but that's what the experts said.


Some of the experts.. in clearly dated, unwise fashion. Unwise because doing so invites reactionary (knee jerk, undated) critique. A very reasonable average value always exists.. which likely agrees with no one's exact POV.. Trusting informed consensus generally beats the alternative though.. Ah, life..


----------



## rightnow909

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> It seems to me that there should be repercussions of some type when laws are passed that are blatently and knowingly unconstitutional because they deprive people rights and allow harm to them while they are in effect even though they are eventually overturned or ruled to be unconstitutional.


I went to the link, was not able to copy / paste to read later
could you copy it to this forum and then I can copy it to read later.. I have very little time on internet, don't have it myself..


----------



## Unkotare

Stann said:


> I'm no expert but that's what the experts said.


Bullshit


----------



## Stann

Grumblenuts said:


> Some of the experts.. in clearly dated, unwise fashion. Unwise because doing so invites reactionary (knee jerk, undated) critique. A very reasonable average value always exists.. which likely agrees with no one's exact POV.. Trusting informed consensus generally beats the alternative though.. Ah, life..


No, you don't understand that 1.5 to 2 billion range was the ideal world population. We are way over that approaching 8 billion. The article also said at the maximum world population would be between 10 and 12 billion. Everything after that point is unsustainable. I think most human beings want to flourish, not just survive. Most people in the world are already having trouble making ends meet. I'm starting years old I don't really care and I'm 70 years old and I'm not leaving any children behind, my physical lineage ends with me. I would think people that have children and grandchildren would  want to leave them a world fit to live in.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Stann said:


> No, you don't understand that 1.5 to 2 billion range was the ideal world population.


I understood perfectly and you're younger than one of my brothers. Forget it. Put me back on ignore please.


----------



## Unkotare

Stann said:


> No, you don't understand that 1.5 to 2 billion range was the ideal world population. We are way over that approaching 8 billion. The article also said at the maximum world population would be between 10 and 12 billion. Everything after that point is unsustainable. I think most human beings want to flourish, not just survive. Most people in the world are already having trouble making ends meet. I'm starting years old I don't really care and I'm 70 years old and I'm not leaving any children behind, my physical lineage ends with me. I would think people that have children and grandchildren would  want to leave them a world fit to live in.


Holy shit, you're an idiot.


----------



## Stann

Grumblenuts said:


> I understood perfectly and you're younger than one of my brothers. Forget it. Put me back on ignore please.


That would be a pleasure.


----------



## Lysistrata

ESDRAELON said:


> This is America and it seems the tide is turning on this issue.  Texans disagree with your views and the actions of this one judge have been set aside and the threshold for this procedure now ends when the heartbeat begins.



This is not an issue that should be subjected to the opinions of a majority. It is a private matter, notwithstanding what percentage of Texans agree with the law and what percentage don't. You can't just say "Texans" as you don't know that they all agree, and there seems to be plenty of backlash from Texans, some of whom are attending protest rallies and some of whom are even fleeing to other states to obtain abortions.

How about being "pro-life" and straightening out the murderous gun laws in Texas, caring for the migrants, seeing that all Texans have homes and food on the table, and making sure that all measures intended to stop the spread of Covid-19 are used by all,  for starters.


----------



## Stann

Lysistrata said:


> This is not an issue that should be subjected to the opinions of a majority. It is a private matter, notwithstanding what percentage of Texans agree with the law and what percentage don't. You can't just say "Texans" as you don't know that they all agree, and there seems to be plenty of backlash from Texans, some of whom are attending protest rallies and some of whom are even fleeing to other states to obtain abortions.
> 
> How about being "pro-life" and straightening out the murderous gun laws in Texas, caring for the migrants, seeing that all Texans have homes and food on the table, and making sure that all measures intended to stop the spread of Covid-19 are used by all,  for starters.


Totally agree, however well meaning these " pro-lifers " believe they are, this law hurts everyone, mostly them - it has destroyed their credibility. There is nothing " moral " about this law. Morals are good thing for people to have to utilize for themselves, not to use to judge others.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Stann said:


> Totally agree, however well meaning these " pro-lifers " believe they are, this law hurts everyone, mostly them - it has destroyed their credibility. There is nothing " moral " about this law. Morals are good thing for people to have to utilize for themselves, not to use to judge others.


it is not moral to kill unborn children because the mother does not want to deal with being pregnant.


----------



## Stann

RetiredGySgt said:


> it is not moral to kill unborn children because the mother does not want to deal with being pregnant.


You can't win, no one wins with this law. Using evil to combat what you believe is evil makes you evil.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lysistrata said:


> How about being "pro-life" and straightening out the murderous gun laws in Texas,


 
"Muederous gun laws"
 
-Someone- has been watching too much MSDNC


----------



## Grumblenuts

Stann said:


> No, you don't understand that 1.5 to 2 billion range was the ideal world population. We are way over that approaching 8 billion. The article also said at the maximum world population would be between 10 and 12 billion. Everything after that point is unsustainable. I think most human beings want to flourish, not just survive. Most people in the world are already having trouble making ends meet. I'm starting years old I don't really care and I'm 70 years old and I'm not leaving any children behind, my physical lineage ends with me. I would think people that have children and grandchildren would  want to leave them a world fit to live in.


Just to clarify.. there is no such thing as an "ideal world population." That concept is ridiculous. I have no issue with the rest apart from it being weirdly premised in this same "ideal population" context. "Sustainable" is scientific. "Ideal" is not. It's political bullshit.


----------



## beautress

Stann said:


> Usually laws target criminals; that's the problem with this Texas law he creates criminals where no crime was committed, and rewards the bad behavior of money grubbing idiots to commit crimes against their fellow citizens.


The girl people who create human beings by sexual intercourse with a man who wishes to disregard his offspring rather than being in their little baby food face and dirty drawers paradigm the following year are headed for trouble in the creation of a hateful life and/or sudden death their jilted mother puts them through which is the painful dismemberment of their growing bodies and  the totally vicious, inhumane sucking out brain masses that were so busy trying to follow rigid dna instructions they hadn't the power to slice back at their satanic murderer, because they are trusting, weak but very present little souls as well as human beings in an elemental growth phase before getting a look at other babies in the maternity ward of the hospital they should have seen on their first day when they are ready to be nursed and cared for by two adult human beings who didn't kill each other first.

That said, it is illegal to kill another human being nor to torture a domestic animal. A fetus is a human being, and disturbing and killing the preborn being is cowardly, faithless, and murderous behavior that stains both father and mother with a crime against humanity and leads to a guilty and unconciable  existence until death along with the cowards who assisted the mommie dearest to murder her own blood. And that is the fact such killers do not accept until they finally develop a right and appropriate conscience. We have a lot of practiced killers running loose in this society. Stop the insanity that mass abortion is in America. Disallow abortion as a means of birth control. It is just wrong to take life away from another human being. That is God's job.


----------



## beautress

Lysistrata said:


> This is not an issue that should be subjected to the opinions of a majority. It is a private matter, notwithstanding what percentage of Texans agree with the law and what percentage don't. You can't just say "Texans" as you don't know that they all agree, and there seems to be plenty of backlash from Texans, some of whom are attending protest rallies and some of whom are even fleeing to other states to obtain abortions.
> 
> How about being "pro-life" and straightening out the murderous gun laws in Texas, caring for the migrants, seeing that all Texans have homes and food on the table, and making sure that all measures intended to stop the spread of Covid-19 are used by all,  for starters.


Eeewwwwww! That's a police job and you are supporting abject criminals who support defunding police who stop chaotic and undesirable human behavior that extinguishes a human life for the hellishness of it.


----------



## Lysistrata

beautress said:


> Eeewwwwww! That's a police job and you are supporting abject criminals who support defunding police who stop chaotic and undesirable human behavior that extinguishes a human life for the hellishness of it.



what "abject criminals"? Who "extinguishes a human life"? I know someone who had three fertilized eggs that did not develop into humans before having a human baby. I don't understand what this "defunding the police" thing, whatever it is about, has to do with this topic. Nature disrupts the process of manufacturing a human body on a regular basis regardless of the wishes of the person within whose body this is going on. There is no reason for anyone to be more upset about it just because it is the person whose body is involved makes the decision. This apparently has more to do with a bizarre approach to sexual politics by people who, themselves, do not practice a "pro-life" lifestyle in their everyday lives and political thought. Now get the damned guns out of here.


----------



## Grumblenuts

beautress said:


> A fetus is a human being, and disturbing and killing the preborn being is cowardly, faithless, and murderous behavior that stains both father and mother with a crime against humanity and leads to a guilty and unconciable existence until death along with the cowards who assisted the mommie dearest to murder her own blood. And that is the fact such killers do not accept until they finally develop a right and appropriate conscience. We have a lot of practiced killers running loose in this society. Stop the insanity that mass abortion is in America. Disallow abortion as a means of birth control. It is just wrong to take life away from another human being. That is God's job.


A legal person is a born human. Abortion is legal and we really have no shortage of legal persons. So if you really care about babies, try focusing upon supporting young, happy, prospective parents. Help them to provide good homes and nurturing environments for raising children. Spewing all this hatred of particular women for not doing all the things you'd prefer they do helps no one.


----------



## Stann

beautress said:


> The girl people who create human beings by sexual intercourse with a man who wishes to disregard his offspring rather than being in their little baby food face and dirty drawers paradigm the following year are headed for trouble in the creation of a hateful life and/or sudden death their jilted mother puts them through which is the painful dismemberment of their growing bodies and  the totally vicious, inhumane sucking out brain masses that were so busy trying to follow rigid dna instructions they hadn't the power to slice back at their satanic murderer, because they are trusting, weak but very present little souls as well as human beings in an elemental growth phase before getting a look at other babies in the maternity ward of the hospital they should have seen on their first day when they are ready to be nursed and cared for by two adult human beings who didn't kill each other first.
> 
> That said, it is illegal to kill another human being nor to torture a domestic animal. A fetus is a human being, and disturbing and killing the preborn being is cowardly, faithless, and murderous behavior that stains both father and mother with a crime against humanity and leads to a guilty and unconciable  existence until death along with the cowards who assisted the mommie dearest to murder her own blood. And that is the fact such killers do not accept until they finally develop a right and appropriate conscience. We have a lot of practiced killers running loose in this society. Stop the insanity that mass abortion is in America. Disallow abortion as a means of birth control. It is just wrong to take life away from another human being. That is God's job.


How does your mind even work, you wrote a whole bunch of sick stuff there. You must be ill, please get help.


----------



## rightnow909

Stann said:


> No, you don't understand that 1.5 to 2 billion range was the ideal world population. We are way over that approaching 8 billion. The article also said at the maximum world population would be between 10 and 12 billion. Everything after that point is unsustainable. I think most human beings want to flourish, not just survive. Most people in the world are already having trouble making ends meet. I'm starting years old I don't really care and I'm 70 years old and I'm not leaving any children behind, my physical lineage ends with me. I would think people that have children and grandchildren would  want to leave them a world fit to live in.


so... if you believe that we  should kill people bc  we are over populated (which we are NOT), then you would be the first to go

bc of your age..


----------



## Stann

rightnow909 said:


> so... if you believe that we  should kill people bc  we are over populated (which we are NOT), then you would be the first to go
> 
> bc of your age..


I don't believe in murder or suicide. I did everything I could at age 12 I decided I would never marry or have children and I didn't. I'm 70 now, I don't really care if I died tomorrow, but I am still working, still creating and contributing to society so I'm not in any hurry to die. I did everything I could. The fact that governments and people never addressed the issue of overpopulation is not my fault.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Stann said:


> No, you don't understand that 1.5 to 2 billion range was the ideal world population. We are way over that approaching 8 billion.


The world population is about 7.7 billion people.
If we allocated each of these people an acre of living space -- space just to live in - the entire world population could live in Africa.

That leaves the remaining 119 billion acres of earth's land area to support them with food and other resources.

The world population crisis is a myth.


----------



## Stann

M14 Shooter said:


> The world population is about 7.7 billion people.
> If we allocated each of these people an acre of living space -- space just to live in - the entire world population could live in Africa.
> 
> That leaves the remaining 119 billion acres of earth's land area to support them with food and other resources.
> 
> The world population crisis is a myth.


It does not equate that simply. In a perfect world that might be true. The Creator designed this world with the natural systems in place to sustain life. Unfortunately he placed a man, an imperfect semi-intelligent being into the mix and of course he f***** it all up. He f***** so much he screwed everything up.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Stann said:


> It does not equate that simply. In a perfect world that might be true. The Creator designed this world with the natural systems in place to sustain life. Unfortunately he placed a man, an imperfect semi-intelligent being into the mix and of course he f***** it all up. He f***** so much he screwed everything up.


So...  if there -is- some issue here, it is driven by the ineffective distribution of resources, not the population.
And this can be further narrowed down to the distribution of resources in certain areas, not the world _in toto_.


----------



## Stann

M14 Shooter said:


> So...  if there -is- some issue here, it is driven by the ineffective distribution of resources, not the population.
> And this can be further narrowed down to the distribution of resources in certain areas, not the world _in toto_.


We have a world at present where people are unwilling to even discuss over population. And you believe nations are willing to cooperate to improve the distribution of goods and services
 1. We are already starting to have distribution problems affecting the wealthy Nations let alone the poorer Nations 2. Widespread crop failures will become more and more prevalent with climate change. Both of these factors coupled with the overpopulation Factor, paints a dim future for the human race on this planet. It is important to realize the overpopulation problem created all the other problems.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Stann said:


> We have a world at present where people are unwilling to even discuss over population.


There's no need, as it doesn't exist, as the world has more than enough resources to support more than the current population.
The fact some of those people are short on some of those resources is not a function of the number of people.


----------



## Stann

M14 Shooter said:


> There's no need, as it doesn't exist, as the world has more than enough resources to support more than the current population.
> The fact some of those people are short on some of those resources is not a function of the number of people.


Denial, does not change the truth. People are willing to argue just for the case of argument itself, believing they are winning an argument. When winning becomes more important than the truth, it's too late. I am giving up Hope on the human race. I'm sure ignorance has led to the demise of many other worlds. The successful worlds most likely base their truth on science and cooperation, without those two things the human race does not have a future.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Stann said:


> Denial, does not change the truth.


And thus, my statements stand.


----------



## Stann

Stann said:


> Denial, does not change the truth. People are willing to argue just for the case of argument itself, believing they are winning an argument. When winning becomes more important than the truth, it's too late. I am giving up Hope on the human race. I'm sure ignorance has led to the demise of many other worlds. The successful worlds most likely base their truth on science and cooperation, without those two things the human race does not have a future.


Also I'd like to point to another scientific study where they suggested the human population on this planet would stabilize out between 10 and 12 billion.


M14 Shooter said:


> And thus, my statements stand.


I'll stick with the scientists, they know what they're talking about. Https://news.standford.edu>...Optimum human population a third of present, scientists say. Based on a 1994 study. Many many other articles exist coming to the same conclusion. We are killing ourselves, and the process is becoming more and more rapid as the population swells. I used to enjoy some pictures of families in the paper with lots of children, now I dread it. What kind of future are these children going to have? Anything and everything we can do to reduce the population is advisable. I wish there was a lot more education on this subject so people could make better decisions.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Stann said:


> I'll stick with the scientists, they know what they're talking about.


Denial, does not change the truth.


----------



## Stann

M14 Shooter said:


> Denial, does not change the truth.


LOL, can't even come up with your own line. That's pathetic and sad, speaks volumes for you.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Stann said:


> LOL, can't even come up with your own line.


I don't need to - you said all that needs to be said.
Reality doesn't matter to you.


----------



## Stann

M14 Shooter said:


> I don't need to - yours said all that needs to be said.
> Reality doesn't matter to you.


You never proved your point, I guess you're just like the, you are the star of your own fantasy. Good luck with that I hope it works out for you. I'm done here I'm not going to reply back to you this is not discussing any issue, it's just devolved into bad-mouthing each other and I'm not into that. You'll have to find another partner to continue this insanity.


----------



## Stann

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Owning a gun is a Constitutional RIGHT.......show us where the right to murder the unborn is in the Constitution
> 
> See how that works?


There's no comparison; oranges and apples, stupid comparison.


----------



## Stann

Calypso Jones said:


> Makes me wonder.     Women who've done this...if they're cold hearted unrepentent murderous ones,  they encourage the same act for other women...cause.... psychotic behavior loves company.


Psychotic behavior, wow, that's how I would describe a lot of pro-life propaganda. It's amazing anyone could be that involved in other people's lives. If you don't have control over your own body, are you property of the state ! A redundant question, but the reality pro-life advocates are pushing.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Stann said:


> Psychotic behavior, wow, that's how I would describe a lot of pro-life propaganda. It's amazing anyone could be that involved in other people's lives. If you don't have control over your own body, are you property of the state ! A redundant question, but the reality pro-life advocates are pushing.


And yet you support Biden on mask and vaccine mandates?


----------



## Stann

RetiredGySgt said:


> And yet you support Biden on mask and vaccine mandates?


In case you haven't noticed we are at war with a virus. Mandates are required cuz we have so many stupid, selfish people who think who thinks they know better than the experts in public health and virology.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Yes, but geez, why can't we date a woman now and then?


----------



## Grumblenuts

M14 Shooter said:


> The world population is about 7.7 billion people.
> If we allocated each of these people an acre of living space -- space just to live in - the entire world population could live in Africa.
> 
> That leaves the remaining 119 billion acres of earth's land area to support them with food and other resources.
> 
> The world population crisis is a myth.


Interesting. So aliens will do all the farming in Siberia, have giant warehouses floating in the oceans, package and distribute everything just-in-time with hovercraft parked in Antarctica, and will just have to make do living in Europe, Asia, and the Americas..


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Stann said:


> In case you haven't noticed we are at war with a virus. Mandates are required cuz we have so many stupid, selfish people who think who thinks they know better than the experts in public health and virology.


The experts? They dont know the log term effects of this vaccine and more people have died taking the vaccine then any other vaccine in the past all for a virus that kills at a percent less then the flu. Either you are for choice or you are a lying hypocrite. By the way dont start with the anti vac crap I got the shots.


----------



## Stann

RetiredGySgt said:


> The experts? They dont know the log term effects of this vaccine and more people have died taking the vaccine then any other vaccine in the past all for a virus that kills at a percent less then the flu. Either you are for choice or you are a lying hypocrite. By the way dont start with the anti vac crap I got the shots.


All vaccines have risks. Percentage wise the number of deaths directly linked to the vaccine are .00018 %. Only one question do you have a PhD in microbiology or virology ?


----------



## Death Angel

Michael1985 said:


> I have to ask why any state would dare to try this when abortion measure after abortion measure has been struck down by the courts in recent years. It was only a matter of time before it happened with this one too.


Because it is the right thing to do.  Killing the innocent is never okay


----------



## Stann

Death Angel said:


> Because it is the right thing to do.  Killing the innocent is never okay


Murder: The unlawful killing of a person under certain circumstances, usually with malice and forethought. At 6 weeks, the human embryo is not even classified as a fetus yet. So we're not talking about feticide, never mind homicide. The so-called baby you're talking about is about a half inch long, raise about a quarter ounce and looks like a deformed tadpole complete with tail which is about a third of the length of the body. It has what is called oceli where the eyes will form. It has a primitive beating heart that just formed. Other tissues are beginning to differentiate into organs and it has two buds where the arms will form. So much for a baby! It just isn't one. It only has the potential if nothing happens to it. And the last thing this world needs is another mouth to feed, especially one that's not wanted in the first place and or terribly deformed and not really viable to begin with.


----------



## Stann

Stann said:


> Murder: The unlawful killing of a person under certain circumstances, usually with malice and forethought. At 6 weeks, the human embryo is not even classified as a fetus yet. So we're not talking about feticide, never mind homicide. The so-called baby you're talking about is about a half inch long, raise about a quarter ounce and looks like a deformed tadpole complete with tail which is about a third of the length of the body. It has what is called oceli where the eyes will form. It has a primitive beating heart that just formed. Other tissues are beginning to differentiate into organs and it has two buds where the arms will form. So much for a baby! It just isn't one. It only has the potential if nothing happens to it. And the last thing this world needs is another mouth to feed, especially one that's not wanted in the first place and or terribly deformed and not really viable to begin with.


Correction: ways about a quarter ounce.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Stann said:


> Correction: ways about a quarter ounce.


Weighs?


----------



## Michael1985

Death Angel said:


> Because it is the right thing to do.  Killing the innocent is never okay



Not one abortion will actually be stopped because of it. All of the women denied abortion while the ban is in place will simply go and have the procedure anyway once the courts strike it down.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

I find it ironic how the racist black supremacist who started this thread is so gung ho to abort black babies.

I mean, since everybody knows that a higher percentage of black babies are aborted than any other group.

She isn't  a very good black supremacist if  she  can't figure out that we're it not for 50 year's worth of aborting black babies, her people would have far more political clout today as there would be so many more blacks among the population.


----------



## Death Angel

Michael1985 said:


> Not one abortion will actually be stopped because of it. All of the women denied abortion while the ban is in place will simply go and have the procedure anyway once the courts strike it down.


Thats up to them. If a state chooses not to participate that's up to the state


----------



## Death-Ninja

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> It seems to me that there should be repercussions of some type when laws are passed that are blatently and knowingly unconstitutional because they deprive people rights and allow harm to them while they are in effect even though they are eventually overturned or ruled to be unconstitutional.
> 
> There is a member here on U.S. Message board who repeatedly made the assertion that no woman is allowed to have an unlawful abortion, completely overlooking that the act was only recently made unlawful and now the court is saying that the law was wrong.  Well what about the people who have been harmed while this "law" was in effect?
> 
> How would you feel if you were a gun owner and someone was able to pass a law, knowing it would not pass constitutional muster and would be overturned eventually, that made ownership of all semi-automatic pistols unlawful?  You didn't go out and buy one, you were already the legal owner of the semi-auto but know because of someone else's angst, you're suddenly a criminal even though you and they both know that this new law is bogus.  Nonetheless, it's currently the law and while it stands you're a criminal unless you get rid of your semi-autos.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Federal judge blocks Texas restrictive abortion law, says women faced 'irreparable harm'


There is absolutely no constitutional right to murder your baby, if you knew anything about roe/wade, anything, you'd understand that the decision itself was what was unconstitutional! Such was pure, unadulterated judicial activism, right on par with the ludicrous idea of "lack of standing" the latter of which was literally invented out of nothingness absent any constitutional precedents, let alone enumerated within the constitution!


----------



## beautress

Lysistrata said:


> what "abject criminals"? Who "extinguishes a human life"? I know someone who had three fertilized eggs that did not develop into humans before having a human baby. I don't understand what this "defunding the police" thing, whatever it is about, has to do with this topic. Nature disrupts the process of manufacturing a human body on a regular basis regardless of the wishes of the person within whose body this is going on. There is no reason for anyone to be more upset about it just because it is the person whose body is involved makes the decision. This apparently has more to do with a bizarre approach to sexual politics by people who, themselves, do not practice a "pro-life" lifestyle in their everyday lives and political thought. Now get the damned guns out of here.


Lysis, I am not in favor of a pregnancy that puts its mother in death's jaws. I am opposed all abortion that produces genocide.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Michael1985 said:


> Not one abortion will actually be stopped because of it. All of the women denied abortion while the ban is in place will simply go and have the procedure anyway once the courts strike it down.


So... a woman pregant today will have an abortion 18 months from now?


----------



## Mac-7

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> It seems to me that there should be repercussions of some type when laws are passed that are blatently and knowingly unconstitutional because they deprive people rights and allow harm to them while they are in effect even though they are eventually overturned or ruled to be unconstitutional.
> 
> There is a member here on U.S. Message board who repeatedly made the assertion that no woman is allowed to have an unlawful abortion, completely overlooking that the act was only recently made unlawful and now the court is saying that the law was wrong.  Well what about the people who have been harmed while this "law" was in effect?
> 
> How would you feel if you were a gun owner and someone was able to pass a law, knowing it would not pass constitutional muster and would be overturned eventually, that made ownership of all semi-automatic pistols unlawful?  You didn't go out and buy one, you were already the legal owner of the semi-auto but know because of someone else's angst, you're suddenly a criminal even though you and they both know that this new law is bogus.  Nonetheless, it's currently the law and while it stands you're a criminal unless you get rid of your semi-autos.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Federal judge blocks Texas restrictive abortion law, says women faced 'irreparable harm'


This was expected

Libs found an obama flunky to delay the law

Its a time tested scheme that the left uses

I think that if it gets overturned by the SC then  U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman is incompetent and should be revieved of his job


----------



## Stann

Dogmaphobe said:


> I find it ironic how the racist black supremacist who started this thread is so gung ho to abort black babies.
> 
> I mean, since everybody knows that a higher percentage of black babies are aborted than any other group.
> 
> She isn't  a very good black supremacist if  she  can't figure out that we're it not for 50 year's worth of aborting black babies, her people would have far more political clout today as there would be so many more blacks among the population.


I tried to look up the reasons black women have the highest number of abortions five times out of their white counterparts, Hispanics are the second highest group at twice the level of whites. All other groups Asian Pacific Islanders native American and mixed race people's accounted for the lowest number of abortions. The main reasons for abortion are socioeconomic. Black women do not have easy access to preventative measures such as birth control and if they do have it they aren't consistent about taking the pills and many of their partners refuse to wear condoms. I'd call that a double whammy. Better access to healthcare and education would be the best plan to reduce these numbers. Overall abortion numbers are going down primarily due to prevention and education.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Been searching for two crazy preacher sound clips and finally found one of them. Here's a transcript:








						Creep of the Week: Shane Vaughn
					

News, events, features, entertainment, interviews, Pride, nightlife, organizations, families, marriage




					thegavoice.com
				



And here he is on Reddit:

Dead babies!


----------



## rightnow909

Stann said:


> I don't believe in murder or suicide. I did everything I could at age 12 I decided I would never marry or have children and I didn't. I'm 70 now, I don't really care if I died tomorrow, but I am still working, still creating and contributing to society so I'm not in any hurry to die. I did everything I could. The fact that governments and people never addressed the issue of overpopulation is not my fault.


there is no over population. We are being lied to at every turn. But we don't need "them" to help u s figure things out re population:

birth control methods and devices of all kinds
abortion
sterilization
women waiting until their 30s to have kids
divorce rate..

The US and other countries are BELOW replacement level births. Some years back Japan had to  import labor from Korea (they had abortion before us, I believe)

The Nazis in charge will advocate doing away with old people first of all, they have outlived their usefulness.. (according to them, the know-it-alls)..

once one group of humans is deemed dispensable (the unborn), not hard to get to other groups.. Rationalization... that's howw it workss


----------



## rightnow909

Stann said:


> I tried to look up the reasons black women have the highest number of abortions five times out of their white counterparts, Hispanics are the second highest group at twice the level of whites. All other groups Asian Pacific Islanders native American and mixed race people's accounted for the lowest number of abortions. The main reasons for abortion are socioeconomic. Black women do not have easy access to preventative measures such as birth control and if they do have it they aren't consistent about taking the pills and many of their partners refuse to wear condoms. I'd call that a double whammy. Better access to healthcare and education would be the best plan to reduce these numbers. Overall abortion numbers are going down primarily due to prevention and education.


wow.. this strikes me as bogus as hell

black women have access to birth control just as well as anyone else.. your comment makes no sense


----------



## Stann

rightnow909 said:


> there is no over population. We are being lied to at every turn. But we don't need "them" to help u s figure things out re population:
> 
> birth control methods and devices of all kinds
> abortion
> sterilization
> women waiting until their 30s to have kids
> divorce rate..
> 
> The US and other countries are BELOW replacement level births. Some years back Japan had to  import labor from Korea (they had abortion before us, I believe)
> 
> The Nazis in charge will advocate doing away with old people first of all, they have outlived their usefulness.. (according to them, the know-it-alls)..
> 
> once one group of humans is deemed dispensable (the unborn), not hard to get to other groups.. Rationalization... that's howw it workss


You got quite a conspiracy theory going there for you. If any of it were true, it would be all over the news, not just on Fox and qanon and other far right wing news agencies. All people do not like being manipulated.


----------



## Man of Ethics

I am a man.  I can not know if abortion is murder or not -- women know better.

On Social Media *I have seen countless Liberal and pro-choice women claim that all men are oppressors and all men are complicit.*  Men should take this opportunity to remind liberal women that we do not deserve such abuse.  We can take this opportunity to *extend full faith and credit to pro-life women* who view us almost as moral equals.


----------



## Man of Ethics

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Are you male or female?


Male.  Most Liberal women * view all men as complicit oppressors.*. In my opinion, men should give *full faith and credit* to pro-life women who mostly view us as moral equals.


----------



## Unkotare

Relative Ethics said:


> I am a man.  I can not know if abortion is murder or not -- women know better.
> 
> .....


You're not a man, you're an idiot.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Relative Ethics said:


> I am a man.  I can not know if abortion is murder or not -- women know better.


You're lying to yourself.


----------



## Man of Ethics

M14 Shooter said:


> You're lying to yourself.


You have not even read my post or my point.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Relative Ethics said:


> You have not even read my post or my point.


I read what I needed to read.
According to your reasoning, only combat veterans can have an opinion on war.


----------



## Rigby5

Stann said:


> All vaccines have risks. Percentage wise the number of deaths directly linked to the vaccine are .00018 %. Only one question do you have a PhD in microbiology or virology ?



Wrong.
We don't know what the negative death or harm total or the benefits of these mRNA injections are yet.
It appears the deaths are likely to increase as the immune system starts reacting to our own spike proteins, like those used by exosomes.
And it appears the mRNA injections leave no lasting immunity at all, with efficacy dropping 30% per month.
Nor does one need a PhD to interpret published research results as well as anyone with a PhD.


----------



## Rigby5

Death Angel said:


> Because it is the right thing to do.  Killing the innocent is never okay



Wrong.
When a body is a vegetable without brain activity, we kill the innocent all the time.
It is merciful.
And we kill the innocent all the time, even when it is wrong, like bombing North Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc.


----------



## Rigby5

Dogmaphobe said:


> I find it ironic how the racist black supremacist who started this thread is so gung ho to abort black babies.
> 
> I mean, since everybody knows that a higher percentage of black babies are aborted than any other group.
> 
> She isn't  a very good black supremacist if  she  can't figure out that we're it not for 50 year's worth of aborting black babies, her people would have far more political clout today as there would be so many more blacks among the population.



But everyone should also know that over population is bad, and that trying to make political wins simply by shear numbers is wrong.
When a political position is right, you gain support for it by logical discussion, not having more babies.


----------



## Rigby5

Death Angel said:


> Thats up to them. If a state chooses not to participate that's up to the state



States do NOT get to choose at all.
These are individual rights were are talking about, and when states try to dictate, they should be utterly destroyed.


----------



## Rigby5

Death-Ninja said:


> There is absolutely no constitutional right to murder your baby, if you knew anything about roe/wade, anything, you'd understand that the decision itself was what was unconstitutional! Such was pure, unadulterated judicial activism, right on par with the ludicrous idea of "lack of standing" the latter of which was literally invented out of nothingness absent any constitutional precedents, let alone enumerated within the constitution!



Wrong.
The 14th amendment made all individual rights constitutional.
Rights pre-date the constitution and are infinite.
Like the right to privacy.
Privacy is not listed in the Constitution, but became a constitutionally protected right by the 14th amendment.
No state may now violate individual right of privacy without being attacked by the feds.
Same with individual gun rights, as the way it is supposed to work.
The McDonald vs Chicago ruling against state gun control is because of the 14th amendment.

As for lack of standing, the point is government is not a source of any legal authority.
Only individual rights are.
So then for anyone or any government to act against anyone else, there has to be proof that act is necessary in order to defend individual rights of the one acting against someone else.
That is why the War on Drugs is actually totally illegal, in that there is no one with standing for the police to be protecting from drugs.
And with abortion, the fetus is not a human, so has no rights, and no one has the right to act for the fetus.


----------



## Rigby5

beautress said:


> Lysis, I am not in favor of a pregnancy that puts its mother in death's jaws. I am opposed all abortion that produces genocide.



No single abortion could possibly ever be genocide.
Genocide would require mandating multiple abortions on a massive scale.
But without abortion, the high reproductive rate of humans will eventually cause mass genocide, as we over run our limited resources and go extinct as a species.


----------



## Rigby5

Stann said:


> I tried to look up the reasons black women have the highest number of abortions five times out of their white counterparts, Hispanics are the second highest group at twice the level of whites. All other groups Asian Pacific Islanders native American and mixed race people's accounted for the lowest number of abortions. The main reasons for abortion are socioeconomic. Black women do not have easy access to preventative measures such as birth control and if they do have it they aren't consistent about taking the pills and many of their partners refuse to wear condoms. I'd call that a double whammy. Better access to healthcare and education would be the best plan to reduce these numbers. Overall abortion numbers are going down primarily due to prevention and education.



Also poverty is known to increase reproduction.
It is basic instinct.
Whenever a species is stressed, as poverty does, likely the instinct is to increase reproduction in order to prevent extinction, even though it may be counter productive in reality.
It is still always true.
The way to reduce population growth is always to reduce poverty.


----------



## Rigby5

rightnow909 said:


> there is no over population. We are being lied to at every turn. But we don't need "them" to help u s figure things out re population:
> 
> birth control methods and devices of all kinds
> abortion
> sterilization
> women waiting until their 30s to have kids
> divorce rate..
> 
> The US and other countries are BELOW replacement level births. Some years back Japan had to  import labor from Korea (they had abortion before us, I believe)
> 
> The Nazis in charge will advocate doing away with old people first of all, they have outlived their usefulness.. (according to them, the know-it-alls)..
> 
> once one group of humans is deemed dispensable (the unborn), not hard to get to other groups.. Rationalization... that's howw it workss



That is ridiculous.
Of course there is over population.
We are taking over all the resources on the planet, and all the natural animals are quickly going extinct due to us.
Resources are limited.
We only delayed Malthus through the use of fossil fuel.
But fossil fuels are limited.
Land, water, and even air are limited.
So then population must also be limited.
And likely need to be about a third what we have now, already.
When fossil fuels run out, then Malthus will again be right.


----------



## Rigby5

M14 Shooter said:


> I read what I needed to read.
> According to your reasoning, only combat veterans can have an opinion on war.



I don't think you analogy works.
He did not talk about having an "opinion".
He said who really "knows".
And while anyone can have an opinion, that is way different than really knowing.
And only a woman, who has all the hormones, instincts, etc. can really know what is right about reproduction.
Men know nothing about reproduction, they only know about their part in sex. 
Nothing else.
In fact, males in nature rarely play any role in reproduction beyond the initial sex act.
They have no knowledge, instincts, hormones, or anything to do with it.


----------



## Rigby5

M14 Shooter said:


> You're lying to yourself.



No, I agree with him that it has to be up to the woman alone, and no one else.
Lets assume for theory that the woman who wants an abortion is defective and does not have proper maternal instincts?
So what?
Even if she is wrong to what an abortion as far as the human species, it can still be right for her.
No one else gets to determine what is right for her.
And you certainly not demand she be used like some uterus slave.
Any and all women have to get to decide for themselves.
No one else.


----------



## beautress

Rigby5 said:


> No single abortion could possibly ever be genocide.
> Genocide would require mandating multiple abortions on a massive scale.
> But without abortion, the high reproductive rate of humans will eventually cause mass genocide, as we over run our limited resources and go extinct as a species.


With a million future Americans dying in vitro in the nastiest set of painful body dismemberment that is worse than the kind of dismemberment murderers of people criminals have to cram into duffel bags to take to garbage receptacles, you couldn't pay true humanitaraians to accept, much less to perpetrate. Abortion has become a dark cloud to the spirit of parents who sacrificed to make life good for their young and lose several grandchildren to the devil's yet craftiest way of killing families and all they stand for so he can beat up on God's children.

Do you think they're improving children in satanic rituals that kill a nation's future?
Well, not all of us think so.

Parents should protect their children from government sponsored sex education because it is of a dervish nature that breaks the bonds of family loyalty through monumental selfish living that approves of murdering somebody else who inconveniences their sorry irresponsible life because they are too little to fight a team of bully mass murderers off. No loving mother would kill or pay someone else to kill and dismember her own blood. Not ever.


----------



## Rigby5

beautress said:


> With a million future Americans dying in vitro in the nastiest set of painful body dismemberment that is worse than the kind of dismemberment murderers of people criminals have to cram into duffel bags to take to garbage receptacles, you couldn't pay true humanitaraians to accept, much less to perpetrate. Abortion has become a dark cloud to the spirit of parents who sacrificed to make life good for their young and lose several grandchildren to the devil's yet craftiest way of killing families and all they stand for so he can beat up on God's children.
> 
> Do you think they're improving children in satanic rituals that kill a nation's future?
> Well, not all of us think so.
> 
> Parents should protect their children from government sponsored sex education because it is of a dervish nature that breaks the bonds of family loyalty through monumental selfish living that approves of murdering somebody else who inconveniences their sorry irresponsible life because they are too little to fight a team of bully mass murderers off. No loving mother would kill or pay someone else to kill and dismember her own blood. Not ever.



I disagree.
Every menstrual period is the death of a living human.
Each ovum is alive.
With many species, combination with another set to of alleles is not necessary.
Death is normal and ordinary, and insignificant if not sentient.
It is sentience that is divine, not physical body life.
All physical bodies die.
That is not bad.
It is only sentience that matters, and that is not part of the body.


----------



## progressive hunter

Rigby5 said:


> I disagree.
> Every menstrual period is the death of a living human.
> Each ovum is alive.
> With many species, combination with another set to of alleles is not necessary.
> Death is normal and ordinary, and insignificant if not sentient.
> It is sentience that is divine, not physical body life.
> All physical bodies die.
> That is not bad.
> It is only sentience that matters, and that is not part of the body.


as usual everything you just said is wrong,,


----------



## beautress

Rigby5 said:


> I disagree.
> Every menstrual period is the death of a living human.
> Each ovum is alive.
> With many species, combination with another set to of alleles is not necessary.
> Death is normal and ordinary, and insignificant if not sentient.
> It is sentience that is divine, not physical body life.
> All physical bodies die.
> That is not bad.
> It is only sentience that matters, and that is not part of the body.


An ovum is not a human being until it is fertilized and "knows" through its dna that it has to plant itself in the uterus and does so without eyeballs or knowing the constitution that gives it the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Abortion takes away its self-evidence of its being and all the rest the Constitution guarantees a human being.

Anybody who doesn't think the Constitution gives unborn citizens the right to life and liberty and finding its own way in life is sipping witches brew and not the strength of truth and rightness.


----------



## Rigby5

beautress said:


> An ovum is not a human being until it is fertilized and "knows" through its dna that it has to plant itself in the uterus and does so without eyeballs or knowing the constitution that gives it the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Abortion takes away its self-evidence of its being and all the rest the Constitution guarantees a human being.
> 
> Anybody who doesn't think the Constitution gives unborn citizens the right to life and liberty and finding its own way in life is sipping witches brew and not the strength of truth and rightness.



Historically human ovum used to at one time be all there was.
Sexual reproduction evolved later.
Sometimes an ovum can and does spontaneously replicate and attach to the uterus and become born.
No one can tell without a DNA analysis.

A fetus has no rights at all, only the living woman does.


----------



## beautress

Rigby5 said:


> Historically human ovum used to at one time be all there was.
> Sexual reproduction evolved later.
> Sometimes an ovum can and does spontaneously replicate and attach to the uterus and become born.
> No one can tell without a DNA analysis.
> 
> A fetus has no rights at all, only the living woman does.


That was not true before Roe v. wade, and it is not true in the land of Texas where children are born into families most of whom are loving and resilient to welcoming the joy of teaching a little one to be as kind, loving, and generous as their mommie and daddy. Yea for newborns!!!!!   ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡Yay!!!!!!


----------



## Rigby5

beautress said:


> That was not true before Roe v. wade, and it is not true in the land of Texas where children are born into families most of whom are loving and resilient to welcoming the joy of teaching a little one to be as kind, loving, and generous as their mommie and daddy. Yea for newborns!!!!!   ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡Yay!!!!!!



Wrong.
Abortion was legal in Texas before 1856.

{... By 1854, Texas passed a law that made it illegal for a physician (or someone else, usually someone else at that time) to perform an abortion. That was punishable by up to five years in prison (minimum sentence being two years). ...}

The state should have no jurisdiction over abortion, and Texas is in violation of the basis for law in a democratic republic.


----------



## beautress

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Abortion was legal in Texas before 1856.
> 
> {... By 1854, Texas passed a law that made it illegal for a physician (or someone else, usually someone else at that time) to perform an abortion. That was punishable by up to five years in prison (minimum sentence being two years). ...}
> 
> The state should have no jurisdiction over abortion, and Texas is in violation of the basis for law in a democratic republic.


That's because you don't understand a few things. Laws were only passed in the new state of Texas when they were needed. And that one was one nobody ever dreamed of here less than 12 years after we became the 28th State in the US on December 28, 1845. Our forbears didn't realize it until the situation of our sparse population demanded that children would help fill in the blanks. That's why almost 200 years later.  we still consider children as treasures and not inconveniences like the Deep state views them since they have no reason to do anything than to view children in a cold, calculated way, i. e. inconveniences. We don't go for that in the Lone Star State. We care about our own.


----------



## beautress

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Abortion was legal in Texas before 1856.
> 
> {... By 1854, Texas passed a law that made it illegal for a physician (or someone else, usually someone else at that time) to perform an abortion. That was punishable by up to five years in prison (minimum sentence being two years). ...}
> 
> The state should have no jurisdiction over abortion, and Texas is in violation of the basis for law in a democratic republic.


States have rights.


----------



## Rigby5

beautress said:


> That's because you don't understand a few things. Laws were only passed in the new state of Texas when they were needed. And that one was one nobody ever dreamed of here less than 12 years after we became the 28th State in the US on December 28, 1845. Our forbears didn't realize it until the situation of our sparse population demanded that children would help fill in the blanks. That's why almost 200 years later.  we still consider children as treasures and not inconveniences like the Deep state views them since they have no reason to do anything than to view children in a cold, calculated way, i. e. inconveniences. We don't go for that in the Lone Star State. We care about our own.



I lived in Texas for a few years, and saw no concern for children.
Schools were not good, there was less daycare, more pollution from refineries, no urban planning to allow for safe or easy transportation, very poor mass transit, etc.


----------



## Rigby5

beautress said:


> States have rights.



Wrong.
Only individuals have rights.
Individuals can then create states and delegate them authority, but states can never have any rights at all, ever.


----------



## beautress

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Only individuals have rights.
> Individuals can then create states and delegate them authority, but states can never have any rights at all, ever.


Human beings have rights in the constitution of this country which includes the RIGHT TO LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of halpiness. The mistake made by the Supreme court in Roe v. Wade was their failure to understand the most basic of precepts: they failed to acknowledge that Yes, human life begins at conception. That is, was, and will ever be the truth. When conception occurs, a 2-celled being is formed by dna particles ligning up with unique characters ligning up in such a way a unique zygote has the chance to go for its attachment to the uterus for succor to form stage 2 of its human life of forming through the miraculous growth of the little bitty human being growing unique physical characteristics according to its cheerful demands in the dna "instruction book." It's a miracle!

Yea!!! Life goes on. Again I say, ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡YAY!!!!!!!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

beautress said:


> States have rights.


But they’re not unlimited.

States are subject to Federal laws and the decisions of Federal courts.

States don’t have the right to deny immigrant children access to public education, states don’t have the right to deny same-sex couples access to state marriage law, and states do not have the right to compel women to give birth against their will.


----------



## M14 Shooter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> But they’re not unlimited.
> States are subject to Federal laws and the decisions of Federal courts.
> States don’t have the right to deny immigrant children access to public education, states don’t have the right to deny same-sex couples access to state marriage law, and states do not have the right to compel women to give birth against their will.


And yet, you believe the TX ban on abortion is constitutional.
Why don't you ever mention this?


----------



## Kilroy2

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> It seems to me that there should be repercussions of some type when laws are passed that are blatently and knowingly unconstitutional because they deprive people rights and allow harm to them while they are in effect even though they are eventually overturned or ruled to be unconstitutional.
> 
> There is a member here on U.S. Message board who repeatedly made the assertion that no woman is allowed to have an unlawful abortion, completely overlooking that the act was only recently made unlawful and now the court is saying that the law was wrong.  Well what about the people who have been harmed while this "law" was in effect?
> 
> How would you feel if you were a gun owner and someone was able to pass a law, knowing it would not pass constitutional muster and would be overturned eventually, that made ownership of all semi-automatic pistols unlawful?  You didn't go out and buy one, you were already the legal owner of the semi-auto but know because of someone else's angst, you're suddenly a criminal even though you and they both know that this new law is bogus.  Nonetheless, it's currently the law and while it stands you're a criminal unless you get rid of your semi-autos.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Federal judge blocks Texas restrictive abortion law, says women faced 'irreparable harm'



That is how interpretation work.  They cry that the state or government cannot ban guns based on a few words as stated in the 2nd amendment. Yet ignoring the   first part of the amendment about raising a milia as part of the amendment 

Yet when it comes to the pursuit of happiness then they conveniently ignore it for the citizen but want to grant it to the unborn child who does not have citizenship.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> It seems to me that there should be repercussions of some type when laws are passed that are blatently and knowingly unconstitutional because they deprive people rights and allow harm to them while they are in effect even though they are eventually overturned or ruled to be unconstitutional.
> 
> There is a member here on U.S. Message board who repeatedly made the assertion that no woman is allowed to have an unlawful abortion, completely overlooking that the act was only recently made unlawful and now the court is saying that the law was wrong.  Well what about the people who have been harmed while this "law" was in effect?
> 
> How would you feel if you were a gun owner and someone was able to pass a law, knowing it would not pass constitutional muster and would be overturned eventually, that made ownership of all semi-automatic pistols unlawful?  You didn't go out and buy one, you were already the legal owner of the semi-auto but know because of someone else's angst, you're suddenly a criminal even though you and they both know that this new law is bogus.  Nonetheless, it's currently the law and while it stands you're a criminal unless you get rid of your semi-autos.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Federal judge blocks Texas restrictive abortion law, says women faced 'irreparable harm'


The Federal Government has no right sticking it's nose into a States right issue.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

Kilroy2 said:


> That is how interpretation work.  They cry that the state or government cannot ban guns based on a few words as stated in the 2nd amendment. Yet ignoring the   first part of the amendment about raising a milia as part of the amendment
> 
> Yet when it comes to the pursuit of happiness then they conveniently ignore it for the citizen but want to grant it to the unborn child who does not have citizenship.


As you ignore the part about the right of the people.


----------



## Unkotare

Kilroy2 said:


> That is how interpretation work.  They cry that the state or government cannot ban guns based on a few words as stated in the 2nd amendment. Yet ignoring the   first part of the amendment about raising a milia as part of the amendment
> 
> Yet when it comes to the pursuit of happiness then they conveniently ignore it for the citizen but want to grant it to the unborn child who does not have citizenship.


What the hell are you talking about?


----------



## AZrailwhale

Rigby5 said:


> I lived in Texas for a few years, and saw no concern for children.
> Schools were not good, there was less daycare, more pollution from refineries, no urban planning to allow for safe or easy transportation, very poor mass transit, etc.


Right, conservative governments expect their citizens to be responsible for themselves.  Mass transit is an expensive boondoggle everywhere it runs.  Government has to subsidize it.  Daycare is a private responsibility.  Urban planning is unelected bureaucrats telling citizens what they can do with the property the citizens bought and paid for.  None of what you complain about except controlling pollution are good things.


----------

