Another Texas GOP lawmaker is attempting to make abortion punishable by the death penalty

Another Texas GOP lawmaker is attempting to make abortion punishable by the death penalty

I have never understood why people think they have the right to decide what is best for another person. I see this same kind of argument surrounding the right to vote. Some argue that only "informed people" should have the right to vote which loosely translate to "as long as they agree with my political choices". I don't expect this to go anywhere in the courts. And, that's the way it should be.

What do you think?

 

It's Texas... backwards and barbaric.....and definitely not PRO life....

 

I hope those who think women will not be punished the same as the physicians TAKE NOTE!!!

So rape victims will be punished more severely than rapists....THAT IS TEXAS.

Punishes women with the death penalty for wanting to live through a pregnancy.....THAT IS TEXAS.

TEXAS doesn't take Covid seriously. How many people did they kill because they are so backwards they couldn't provide electricity?

So TEXANS tell women who have had an abortion, " Squeal on your provider and we'll let you live".

That is their slimey, backhanded, underhanded way of trying to say they don't want to execute women, but they do.

 

We're not proud of that loon, trust me.

 

To the authoritarian Pubs of Texas I have to say here what I usually end up trying to tell the authoritarian leftists of the rest of the nation regarding virtually everything but abortion- trying to enforce morality with the power of the state is antithetical to freedom. I agree that abortion (in all but the most extreme cases) is the wrongful, unnecessary and evil killing of a human. But its hardly the only immoral thing that we protect from being made illegal in the interest of promoting the right to choose how we allocate our personal resources and conduct ourselves in society. Aborting a human child to protect ones own lifestyle is no more or less evil than purchasing a yacht while human children elsewhere suffer in poverty. Both are, at the end of the day, careless greed, and if one warrants forceful intervention by the state, then precedentially so does the other (tbc- neither should warrant it in a free society). We use the power of the state to preserve stability, not morality. This is why theft and homicide are illegal- the economy and society in general cannot function with that chaos. Abortion does not create that chaos. It has no effect on the stability of society, and thus we are obliged to allow it if we value individual liberty. Individual liberty, of course, is just another way of saying the right to choose, and if we don't have the right to make the wrong choice, then we don't have the right to choose and we don't have individual liberty. To put another way, forcing someone to bear a child that they don't want to bear is forcing them to sacrifice themself for the group, aka the collective. Its no different than forcing you to pay for a stranger's food, housing and entertainment (it should be noted, leftists, that the coercive participation in the 'social safety nets' has set the foundational ideological precedent- that we can force one to support another -that lays at the foundation of banning abortion...). The bottom line is everyone needs to stop trying to ban ****. Guns, weed, carbon, abortion... its all just authoritarian tug-of-war, little control freaks trying to use the coercive violence of the state against people who do things they don't like, while the big control freaks use the precedent set by both sides to consolidate power over all of us. Just stop already. Before we're all slaves, plz.

 

I know quite a few people that would lose their damn minds if they couldn't be in everybody else's business all the time. It's a sickness.

 

Good. Abortion IS murder.

 

This would only be for some very rare cases. Like super-late term abortions, where the woman has a long past history of aborting, and there were absolutely no good reasons why she had to get that abortion.

Probably it would only end up applying to less than 0.5% of abortions, but it would mainly send a message.

A message that just because it's inside the womb doesn't make it a non-person.

I personally think it is a bad idea because such a law would probably be over-used, but there are probably a few women who deserve it.

 

I've often wondered why politicians (and BOTH parties have their loose cannon loons) introduce over the top bills like this having to know they stand no chance of passing and on the microscopic chance it did wouldn't survive the first court challenge. I'm at a loss....anybody?

 

I have never understood this either... I have never understood why liberals such as yourself think that they can decide what is best for other people like myself with regard to:

[1] mask wearing (mask mandates rather than freedom to choose)
[2] employee wages (minimum wage laws rather than freedom to work for any wage)
[3] food intake (plant based meat rather than real meat)
[4] vehicles (electric power rather than gasoline power)
[5] plastic bags (reusable bags rather than plastic bags)
[6] toilets/sinks/etc. (low flow rather than enough flow)
[7] fireplaces/furnaces/water heaters/various appliances (energy efficient rather than actually works)
[8] energy (wind and solar rather than coal, oil, and natural gas)
[9] guns (banned/regulated from civilians rather than freely owned)
[10] elections (installing a Prime Minister to be the expendable face of an Oligarchy rather than freely and duly electing a President)
[11] gatherings/traveling/etc. (social distancing and partial capacity mandates rather than freedom to choose)
[12] vaccines (you better get one!!! rather than freedom to choose)

and on and on and on and on and on, but 12 examples should suffice.

I think that you are approving of the choice to kill a living human who has not committed any crime and has not expressed any desire to die.

I think that is morally reprehensible.

 

And I agree. But do you want our government legislating morality? Consider all the things the progressives consider to be 'immoral' when constructing your answer... do you want to set the precedent that those things could be illegal depending merely on the whim of the mob?

 

Grandstanding, or to try to send a message, or to try to increase their popularity with the voters (even though it has no chance of passing).
Many of these politicians who introduce these type of bills would not have done so if they knew it actually had any realistic chance of passing.

 

True... Thus, I would propose a bill that bans the killing of a living (has a heartbeat) human (of the homo sapien species) who has not committed any crime nor has expressed any desire to die.

 

There's no way around legislating morality on at least some level of government.

Therefore, that's why I do not want the FEDERAL government legislating morality. I want that to be left at the State and local level. That gives people the option to move to a different State or locality if they don't like their own State's laws.

It's too late. Liberals are ALREADY doing this, but via Oligarchy instead of via mob.

 

I'm not a liberal.

The mask mandate is related to the collective benefit of slowing down the transmission of what is described as a highly contagious virus. You can choose to not wear one but that comes with also not being permitted to enter certain places.

Employee wages are governed because businesses would just take advantage of workers. The minimum wage is to deter this practice.

Nobody tells anybody what they can and cannot consume. Those options are available to people who want them.

Nobody tells anybody what they can and cannot drive. Those options are available to the people who want them.

Nobody tells anyone that have to use a specific type of bag. The only exception to this has surrounded the early days of COVID and customers were asked not to use reusable bags.

Building codes change all the time. As a result, newer products are used as times change. It is still possible to purchase regular flow toilets.

Advancements in products change with time and some items become obsolete.

Advancements in sources of power change with time. This is an issue that impacts the entire world so it's reasonable that remedies to certain problems are addressed that way.

Guns are regulated for all civilians including law enforcement. I know of nothing that says civilians are banned from purchasing and owning guns other than for those people convicted of certain felonies and people with a history of mental health problems.

I'm in the US so we only elect Presidents.

It is clear that most people won't take the initiative to isolate themselves as recommended early on. The rules were changed to account for this. Again, it's about the collective versus the individual benefit.

Nobody has said "you better get one!!!" Yes, it's been encouraged but it's not a requirement.

I believe that people have the right to make the choices they see fit for themselves. It seems hypocritical for you to make that list (in which you claim people's rights are being usurped) while defending taking away a woman's right to choose to keep or abort a pregnancy.

The argument that a fetus is not a criminal and has not expressed a desire to die is not relevant to a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body and pregnancy. If anti-abortionists were so concerned about an "innocent" life, they would do more to provide women with the resources and assistance they need to effectively parent that child. Or, is it just a fun bandwagon where lives only matter in utero? I think that's morally reprehensible.

 

So what, the woman still has several other options if abortion is banned too, as has been explained multiple times in other threads.

What this is really about is taking away options.

 

Yes, you are. You espouse liberal ideals.

Who are you to decide this? You are quite literally doing, as we speak, what you just got done bitching about in your OP... You are deciding what is best for me rather than allowing me to decide for myself. So I can't enter publicly owned places [that MY tax dollars pay for, btw] because YOU decided that it is for the "collective benefit" that I stay away from them unless I wear a compliance cloth?

Who are YOU to tell me that I am being "taken advantage of"? Yet again, you are quite literally doing precisely what you complained about in your OP... All the minimum wage is is a price control that results in a shortage of available jobs.

The Socialist Oligarchy of the Territory of New York's (SOTNY's) "big gulp" law didn't do that? Liberals do this everywhere dude, and it's much more than just soda...

The Socialist Oligarchy of the Territory of California (SOTC) doesn't ban vehicles that don't meet certain emission standards? In fact, they've already ordered to SOTC residents that they will not be able to purchase an ICE vehicle after 2035. Such an order will eventually be made by the SODC and they will attempt to force it upon all the States.

WRONG. The SOTC has already banned plastic bag usage at retail stores. There are loads of other examples too, but one will suffice.

Products that don't work well are not "advancements". Forcing people to use products that don't work well is not freedom.

No, you're just continuing to do what you complained about in your OP... Who are you to decide that people must use wind and solar rather than coal, oil, or natural gas?

There have already been gun bans on certain types of guns... That will only keep progressing until all guns are banned. I know how the liberal ideology works... It is all about slowly conditioning people to become "accepting" of giving up the edges of their freedoms (or whatever else), and after getting those concessions legitimized in people's minds, they then push those edges in until there is nothing left. This ideology is Satanic.

There is no such thing as the USA anymore. It died with the Demonkkkrat coup against President Trump. What remains is the newly formed SODC (an oligarchy ruled by liberals), the SOA (the remaining States, no longer united), the SOTNY, and the SOTC.

Again, YOU are violating your own OP... Who are YOU to decide what is best for me? You seriously can't see how you are doing the very same thing that you are complaining about others doing?

Yes, they have. It is basically the only thing that the mainstream media talks about anymore... and pushes upon people.

... yet. It will be mandated if "not enough" people get jabbed. It's already to the point where people can't fly on an airplane if they haven't been jabbed with it, and that list is only going to grow over time. Again, that's how the Satanic liberal ideology works...

No, you don't. You just got done telling me numerous times that I can't do so.

She doesn't have the right to murder a living human who has committed no crime nor expressed any desire to die (for the convenience of another living human), dude... That is morally reprehensible.

I think that approving of the choice to kill a living human who has committed no crime nor expressed any desire to die is morally reprehensible.

 

They just like wasting taxpayer money on sure to fail bills to get their name in the news...

 

Who are YOU to declare a ZEF a legal person?


You didn't, you can't, they can be killed no matter what YOU think

 

Here's what righties love


So rape victims will be punished more severely than rapists....THAT IS TEXAS.

Punishes women with the death penalty for wanting to live through a pregnancy.....THAT IS TEXAS.

 

I, personally, am not making these choices for people. The majority of any group decides. We choose our lawmakers and they decide.

You can scream about your freedoms all day long. You have to live with the law of the land if you want to participate in society. That's just how it goes. Don't like it? Find a way to colonize another planet and make your own rules for your "kingdom".

 

Are you aware that a slight majority of the women in Texas who get pregnant from rape do not get an abortion?

I'm pretty sure this death penalty stuff is only talking about really late-term abortions, which a woman who was raped usually has no reason to wait that long. (If anything, she is acutely aware that there may be a problem much sooner than other women who get unintentionally pregnant)

 

Nope, from the OP: “does not include exceptions for rape or incest”

It is consistent though so I can at least appreciate that. If one truly believes that a zygote / fetus is a human with all the rights and privileges of all other people (except pregnant females) then treating every case, even those of rape or severe deformity as murder is the only rational step.

Saying it’s murder but then allowing it for rape, invest, deformity or even the health of the mother doesn’t make sense as that is acknowledging it is less than.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
So rape victims will be punished more severely than rapists....THAT IS TEXAS

Are you aware I posted
FoxHastings said: ↑
So rape victims will be punished more severely than rapists....THAT IS TEXAS.""""



You HILARIOUSLY and blatantly could not understand it !!!LOL
And you certainly couldn't refute it ….

,


AGAIN, how TF would YOU know.

...and then you repeat your Sci-Fi misconceptions and erroneous ideas about rape victims and pregnancy...


LOL, I am so glad you are on the losing side...

 

From the dictionary...

Murder: "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder

Since abortion is a constitutional right and murder is "unlawfully killing" then it can't, by definition, be murder.