That's such a disingenuous statement. It's not even a rounding error at that point.
View attachment 64479
Roll your eyes all you want, you don't care what evil is done if it's in accordance with the letter of the law, and you don't care if the law has ill outcome as long as it's still the law. You support evil when it's done within the name of the law.
Roll your eyes all you want, you don't care what evil is done if it's in accordance with the letter of the law, and you don't care if the law has ill outcome as long as it's still the law. You support evil when it's done within the name of the law.
Oooh, my turn:All of that is completely false. Each and every word.
I stated on my first post that I disagreed with it. Then stated the facts that is what you don't like.
There's a difference between what will become a medical emergency and what is a medical emergency. Mankind's medical advancement has been, among other things, primarily to increase the time between the two, so we don't have to wait until the reaper is in the room to do something about it. A law requiring a litmus of 'life threatening' is telling the bouncer to let the reaper skip the line. Only someone who wants someone to die would include that as a requirement, and only someone completely absent of compassion would defend it.I'm not defending this action as I stated above there needs to be allowances for rape incest and medical needs. I was only pointing out that in the post of @fleshconsumed it is false that Texas law prohibits abortion for medical reasons which may be too strict ( I don't know), but the allowance is there.
He isn't wrong. You're pretty comfortable using the law to justify your desires and beliefs (primarily, sticking it to leftists) regardless of the consequences. Even if you were lawful neutral you'd be fine with everyone staying out of everyone else's shit, and playing by the rules.
There's a difference between what will become a medical emergency and what is a medical emergency. Mankind's medical advancement has been, among other things, primarily to increase the time between the two, so we don't have to wait until the reaper is in the room to do something about it. A law requiring a litmus of 'life threatening' is telling the bouncer to let the reaper skip the line. Only someone who wants someone to die would include that as a requirement, and only someone completely absent of compassion would defend it.
You attempted to mitigate the effect by arguing against its detractors, despite the fact they were right. That's a defense, no matter what you want to call it.I'm not defending the Texas Law.
He isn't wrong. You're pretty comfortable using the law to justify your desires and beliefs (primarily, sticking it to leftists) regardless of the consequences. Even if you were lawful neutral you'd be fine with everyone staying out of everyone else's shit, and playing by the rules.
Because the laws are being made unfairly, by unjust people. You have this notion that BECAUSE the law exists it should be followed, without examining the why, except in the case of being anti-democrat or pro-republican. You'll examine that shit until you're blue in the face, and the fact you don't see that is just sad.I do live by the laws of the land yes. Those that I disagree with I vote to change by voting for politicians that agree with me.
Everyone should stay out of everyone else's shit, and play by the rules. What is wrong with that.
I am not anti-abortion, but I do think there should be specific limits such as allowing abortions for Rape, Incest, Medical issues for the Mother or the Fetus.
I'm not defending this action as I stated above there needs to be allowances for rape incest and medical needs. I was only pointing out that in the post of @fleshconsumed it is false that Texas law prohibits abortion for medical reasons which may be too strict ( I don't know), but the allowance is there.
You attempted to mitigate the effect by arguing against its detractors, despite the fact they were right. That's a defense, no matter what you want to call it.
Medical abortions covers a wide range of reasons other than life threatening reasons. Claiming that medical reasons and life threatening reasons are the same is either inconsistent or an overt lie, so which is it?No. @fleshconsumed stated that Texas laws would ban abortion for medical reasons. The Texas law that is going into effect doesn't ban medical abortions. It may or may not be overly strict, but it doesn't ban medically needed abortions.
I didn't defend or condemn the law.
Because the laws are being made unfairly, by unjust people.
As an example, why do you give a shit whether a child is aborted at all?
Ahh, so you're in the camp of save the children, yeah?That is an opinion and nothing more. Meh
At some point that clump of cells becomes a human, you shouldn't kill humans without cause. I am of the opinion that at about 15 weeks abortion should not be allowed at all with the exception of Medical Need to protect the life of the Mother. This need should be determined by the attending Doctor. As for cases of Rape, Incest and just choosing to abort I believe that 15 weeks is plenty of time to determine what you should or want to do.
If you can't see any similarity I cannot help you.
Then legally wed have to change what it means to be a person, which is currently granted at birth. Some states are trying to define personhood earlier but not sure that makes much sense.That is an opinion and nothing more. Meh
At some point that clump of cells becomes a human, you shouldn't kill humans without cause. I am of the opinion that at about 15 weeks abortion should not be allowed at all with the exception of Medical Need to protect the life of the Mother. This need should be determined by the attending Doctor. As for cases of Rape, Incest and just choosing to abort I believe that 15 weeks is plenty of time to determine what you should or want to do.
Medical abortions covers a wide range of reasons other than life threatening reasons. Claiming that medical reasons and life threatening reasons are the same is either inconsistent or an overt lie, so which is it?
Ahh, so you're in the camp of save the children, yeah?
In countries allowing abortion on request, the most common gestational limit is 12 weeks.
And is your concern as great for children already born, in the adoption circuit? Or getting shot in schools? Or is your savior complex only applicable to unborn children, as with so many conservatives?I'm pretty sure I stated what I thought clearly. I think for selective abortion 15 weeks is plenty of time and is more aligned with the rest of the civilized countries which average about 12 weeks.
Law and Policy Guide: Gestational Limits - Center for Reproductive Rights
← Return to the full Law and Policy Guide and the World's Abortion Laws Map Gestational limits prescribe the point within pregnancy when a termination isreproductiverights.org
And is your concern as great for children already born, in the adoption circuit? Or getting shot in schools? Or is your savior complex only applicable to unborn children, as with so many conservatives?
My savior complex?
All children should be protected.
Great, so you're in support of gun bans right? And foster system overhaul?My savior complex?
All children should be protected.