Texas Nutters Abort Rationality

Author: ebuc

Posts

Total: 63
Topic's author
#1
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,935
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
Texas nutter congress aborts rational, logical common sense on a planet that is overpopulated { 8 billiion + }  for the operating systems humanity  has in place.

These Texas nutters are obviously Trumpet trumpeteers who have turned off the empathy centers in brain. Why? Because their brains are stuck in fundamentalist religous-like cult mode, that, does not allow critical, rational, logical common sense processing in their brains of global proportions.

Their nutter motto:

' freedom ' to act irrational, illogical and defy common sense,  if they choose to act that way,

' freedom to encourage backstreet, black market, coat hanger abortions of pregnant women,

' freedom ' to not wear a mask and kill others with their exhalations,

' freedom ' to believe religous, cult-like nonsense that has no shred of scientific data,

' freedom ' to get covid2/19 vaccinations, or Rgneraton antibodies and only superficially support such actions by all humans on Earth,

' freedom ' to ?  ? ? ________non-sense.


#2
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
What’s changed isn’t Texas law, which has always been fucked up, but the Supreme Court majority’s unwillingness to even stay patently unconstitutional state legislation. In terms of political strategy this may backfire for the GOP in 2022 and will certainly improve dems fundraising while Trump is sucking up a lot of money that would normally go to GOP.  
#3
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,617
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@ebuc
 Rumors have circulated for years to the effect that former U.S. President Donald Trump has paid off multiple sexual partners to undergo abortions after he impregnated them, and to sign nondisclosure agreements precluding them from discussing their involvement with him. One common form of this rumor holds that Trump may have paid as many as eight different women to undergo abortions.
#4
Conway
Conway's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 278
1
2
5
Conway's avatar
Conway
1
2
5
-->
@oromagi
On aggregate, which coalition(s) of voters do you see as more strict about "rule of law" and which do you see as being more tolerant of a "living constitution" (court packing)?



#5
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Part of the reason they passed it was it was already passed in South Carolina and nobody said anything they figured they were going to get away with it too.
#6
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@oromagi
What’s changed isn’t Texas law, which has always been fucked up, but the Supreme Court majority’s unwillingness to even stay patently unconstitutional state legislation.
Serious question, and I promise I won’t argue with you either way, but do you REALLY believe that abortion is a constitutional right? Like, imagine God Himself is asking you in your heart of hearts if you truly believe that the US constitution, which does not mention abortion whatsoever, guarantees it as a right?

This goes for everyone else in this thread too. The Roe V Wade seems completely absurd decision no matter how you feel about abortion. 

“In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision ruling that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.” 

That’s…a lot of subtext. If we’re going to read abortion into this clause: “...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” the constitution is worth less than toilet paper. And it does increasingly seem to be worth about that 
#7
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
good for texas!
Topic's author
#8
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,935
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@thett3
Like, imagine God Himself is asking you in your heart of hearts...

Thett, herein lies the problem with your whole assessment and that is this word "God" and what I believe  your infer by use of it.

I have for 25 years made clear, that, God/Universe are synonyms.  And Universe/God  could care less what is in any humans heart of hearts, ergo, the heart that matters most, is the pregnant woman and then, what she chooses to do with a non-breathing organism { fetus/baby attached to her } is between her God/Universe and here God/Universe freedom to do with and organism of her body as she feels is best for her and the potential  self-breathing and disconnected baby.

Humans and their laws are the morality clause that is irrelevant to God/Universe. I believe your morality and your kind, commit virtual rape every time you and those like you attempt to stick their noses into the pregnant woman vagina-womb, without her consent.

I believe you and those like you are religious nut cases who do not practice any rational, logical common sense, and only act on some religious fundamentalism  that has absolutely no bearings on God/Universe and that relationship to the pregnant woman.

So, considering a 8 billion humans and environmentally detrimental via  UN-sustainble operating systems, currently in place i.e. I believe you need to place your nose some where other than a non-consenting pregnant womans body and support practices that help to prevent pregnancies before they occur.

This is rather simple, rational, logical common sense, that I believe you and those like, eschew, without due respect for the pregnant woman and all of humanity. It is sad and little sick-n-the-head.

Why do we have such sad and a little sick-n-the-head adult humans like your and/or others?  Because God/Universe allows the degrees of  freedom for you and/or them to exist. 






#9
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@ebuc
I didn’t mean to bring God in as a moral thing, I meant it as in imagine a scenario where you cannot lie, what do you TRULY believe. Ill ask the same of you, lie detector test with a gun to your head, do you believe that a reasonable interpretation of this clause necessitates abortion rights: “...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Topic's author
#10
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,935
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@thett3
r....easonable interpretation of this clause necessitates abortion rights: “

Already made clear what I believe.  God/Universe allow freedom to you, and/or others like you, to stick you nose into the vaginal-womb of an non-consenting, pregnant woman, --ergo virtual rape--- to stop the pregnant woman from her God/Universe allowed freedom, to make decisions about a non-breathing organism { inside of her and attached to her }  to abort , or not to abort, at any time duration of the pregnancy.

This is rather simple, rational, logical and common sense, that is to be considered in context of the greater whole of 8 billion+ people on Earth and the consequences of those 8 billion+ actions.

 The only heart to consider is that of the pregnant woman, and I dont think  you get that.  You and/or others like you, seem to think  your { and/or others } heart is of more significance than that of the pregnant woman.  This is simple stuff to grasp, unless your and/or others are only listening to your ego based religious non-sense, which is has nothing to do with heart.
#11
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@ebuc
I’m not asking your opinion on abortion, I’m asking you if you truly believe that the due process clause of the 14th amendment has anything to do with abortion 
Topic's author
#12
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,935
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
..due process clause of the 14th amendment has anything to do with abortion...

All human laws --includes abortion laws--  have consequences if a human breaks them.

God/Universe gives humans plenty degrees of allowed freedom.

Human laws are made to respond to --if not always attempt to restrict--   any God/Universe allowed freedoms.

If a person wants to kill themselves, and they succeed, then humans laws become moot in respect to that specific human.
#13
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@thett3
@Conway
I’ve got a busy weekend and no wifi but I’ll try to answer when I have some time
#14
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
>@oromagi
What’s changed isn’t Texas law, which has always been fucked up, but the Supreme Court majority’s unwillingness to even stay patently unconstitutional state legislation.
Serious question, and I promise I won’t argue with you either way, but do you REALLY believe that abortion is a constitutional right? Like, imagine God Himself is asking you in your heart of hearts if you truly believe that the US constitution, which does not mention abortion whatsoever, guarantees it as a right?

This goes for everyone else in this thread too. The Roe V Wade seems completely absurd decision no matter how you feel about abortion. 

“In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision ruling that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.” 

That’s…a lot of subtext. If we’re going to read abortion into this clause: “...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” the constitution is worth less than toilet paper. And it does increasingly seem to be worth about tha
  • The Texas law is unconstitutional whether or not one accepts the constitutionality of abortion. You have presumed that because I call the Texas law unconstitutional I must believe that abortion is a constitutional right
    • The law provides a $10,000 taxpayer funded bonus for anybody who successfully sues anybody for "providing support" to a woman who has had an abortion after a fetal heartbeat has been detected. The law protects plaintiffs from having to pay court costs for these lawsuits.  The law specifies that the plaintiff does not need to be connected to the defendant in any way.  
      • In other words, the plaintiff does not have to show any physical or financial injury to sue (a predicate in Western Law since Magna Carta) and the state protects plaintiffs from the usual punishment for frivolous lawsuits, which is payment of defendant's fees. In theory, I could file 10,000 lawsuits every day alleging that GOP aided and abetted some abortion in Texas  for just the cost of filing fees, forcing the GOP to spend hundreds, even thousands in defense for every dollar I spend in harassment and neither the GOP nor the courts would have legal remedy to stop me.
      • I guess the Legislature's notion is that a flood of lawsuits from anybody, anywhere, with no need to show injury or no risk of court penalty will harass abortion providers out of existence, but
        • We don't want States to be scheming how to harass people States don't like, and
        • such an instrument is obviously begging for abuse.
    • Any Conservative worthy of the name wants to 
      • preserve the tradition of showing injury to justify any civil claim,
      • reduce not increase the volume of frivolous lawsuits,
      • reduce taxpayers liability, not increase, for frivolous lawsuits,
      • oppose state sponsored harassment of unpopular people, andso
    • any Conservative worthy of the name would oppose this law.
  • You have badly misread Roe v Wade if you think that decision calls abortion a constitutional right. 
    • Roe v Wade clearly states that the Right to Privacy is inferred from the 5th and 14th Amendments, not abortion.
      • This is the same right that prevents the govt. from listening to your phone call or reading your emails or searching your house without a warrant.
        • The US Constitution never explicitly says that the govt. can't monitor your telephone conversations it is just one of the many, many private things that citizens do that the government has no right to interfere with or legislate except on a case by case basis.
        • Roe v Wade correctly states that biological processes inside a citizen's body are just another one of those many, many private things that should be none of the govt.'s business.  
          • No "right to abortion" is inferred any more that a "right to phone calls" is inferred.  SCOTUS merely recognized that the Constitution restricted states from interfering at that level of non-public activity.  There's no subtext or special reading- if you think the govt can't inspect your emails at will than you should also agree that the govt can't inspect your uterus at will.
          • The weakness of Roe is that it recognized any govt role in determining the relative safety of the mother and the fetus, which exceptions have been exploited well past the point of rational safety concerns or privacy concerns.

#15
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@thett3
^^^
#16
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,617
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
 About 10 to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage.  Isn't that God's way of telling us that he doesn't give a shit about abortions?
#17
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@FLRW
Officially, the US Constitution does not care what God thinks.

Abortions were commonplace in Jesus' time and even more commonplace was child exposure- unwanted newborns were taken to the garbage dump and left there to die.  Jesus certainly knew that fetuses and newborns were killed daily in cities like Caesarea or Jerusalem but if he ever had an opinion on the subject, the apostles did not capture it for posterity.

Likewise, abortions were commonplace in the late 18th century America.  Abortions were illegal in Catholic countries like France and Spain but generally legal in England and her colonies (with some restrictions after the baby begins to move).  It can't be argued that the founding fathers were unaware of the practice, stuff like that was just better left to the family patriarch to decide. If the founding fathers intended for states to force a woman to complete every pregnancy they would have said so.  I just don't think the founding fathers though that was govt. business.
Topic's author
#18
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,935
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@oromagi
I just don't think the founding fathers though that was govt. business.

Nor anybody else's business, unless the pregnant woman gives consent.

Ive read that in China ---over who knows how many centuries--- female babies were killed because women knew male babies are what matter most to patriarchal society. Sad but true.

China one-child policy in 90s etc --changed to two or three in last few years---  along with AIDs in Africa, reduced the 60's predicted population by some future date,  by 1 billion people. I think it became 9 billion predicted instead of 10 billion by such and such a date.

I wont go into those nutters who oppose all forms of  birth control. 
#19
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@ebuc
A friend of mine took a long business trip to China in the ‘80’s and put together a great slideshow out of it.  He talked about how then the shores at the mouth of the Yangtze River were fenced off from the public and no photography allowed.  He said that was because the shores were trashy and toxic but also because there were many babies’ corpses thrown into the river and coming to rest. The beaches weren’t white sand but white with paper and bone. 
#20
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@thett3
The same clause that guarantees "abortion rights" should also make it unconstitutional for the government to facilitate the destruction of fetal life.
#21
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,083
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@FLRW
And a whole load of fertilized eggs get pissed down the toilet.

And GOD gives a shit?....Metaphorically

LOL
#22
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,083
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
When push comes to shove, an abortion is an abortion and a constitution is a pile of old paper.
Topic's author
#23
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,935
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
@zedvictor4
The same clause that guarantees "abortion rights" should also make it unconstitutional for the government to facilitate the destruction of fetal life.
Why GP? Ar you claiming your religous{?} fundamentalism morality is superiors to a pregnant womans morality and those she seeks out for advice ?


When push comes to shove, an abortion is an abortion and a constitution is a pile of old paper.

Zed,;

1} all pushing-outward { expansive } phenomena of Universe is resultant of pulling-inward { contractive } phenomena ex womb muscles contract and fetus/baby is pushed out,

2} privacy rights is human conception  --- not physical egg conception{ sperm attracted to egg   --- is resultant of humans consideration of fairness for the individual human,

3} human conceptioning process is resultant of matter { fermions } --and bosonic forces---  collapsing/coalescing  via contractive pulling-inward phenomena, ex stars collapse via Gravity (  ) and as result of this pulling-inward, stars radiate { push/expand } back outward,

4} the fertized egg{ physical conception } in-vaginates { gastrulation forms 3 germ layers  };

..." Just after fertilization the zygote (fertilized egg) undergoes cleavage (mitotic cell divisions) and becomes subdivided into smaller cells - the gross arrangement of cells differs greatly among vertebrates, depending on the amount of yolk in the egg:
Holoblastic cleavage occurs when the cleavage furrows pass through the entire egg

• cleavage can either be equal, where the resulting cells contain the same amount of yolk, or unequal, in which some cells contain more yolk than others:  
equal cleavage occurs in microlecithal eggs
- unequal cleavage occurs in mesolecithal eggs
• cleavage results in the formation of a ball of cells (blastomeres) surrounding an internal cavity (blastocoel)

Meroblastic cleavage occurs more in macrolecithal eggs
• cleavage takes place only in a disk at the animal pole
• the cleavage furrows do not extend into the yolk
• results in the formation of the blastodisk that lies on the top of the yolk

Gastrulation is characterized by cell movement and reorganization within the embryo (morphogenetic movements) to the interior of the embryo, forming three primary germ layers: ectoderm, mesoderm, and endoderm.
The cells migrate inward at the blastopore, which forms, or is close to, the location of the anus in the adult
• the ectoderm forms the outer tube of the embryo
• the endoderm is an inner tube that forms the alimentary canal and all its derivative organs
• the mesoderm lies between these two layers.

At the end of gastrulation, the embryo is bilaterally symmetrical, with three discrete cell layers, and rudiments of the notochord and neural tube.
This blastopore-to-anus developmental pathway is found in Chordata, Hemichordata, Echinodermata (starfish, sea urchins, sea cucumbers, etc.), uniting these groups into a monophyletic group called the Deuterostomes. The plesiomorphic condition, found in the Protostomes, is for the blastopore to become the mouth.



#24
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@oromagi
 the Supreme Court majority’s unwillingness to even stay patently unconstitutional state legislation
That's crazy, my man. I see nothing in the Constitution about legalizing child murder if the parents don't want it.
#25
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@bmdrocks21
See post #14
#26
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@oromagi
Thanks for laying out your beliefs in depth, it’s helpful 
#27
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@thett3
Also, right to privacy should certainly extend to vaccination mandates.
#28
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
  • This is the same right that prevents the govt. from listening to your phone call or reading your emails or searching your house without a warrant.
Topic's author
#29
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,935
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
The same clause that guarantees "abortion rights" should also make it unconstitutional for the government to facilitate the destruction of fetal life.
Why GP? Ar you claiming your religous{?} fundamentalism morality is superiors to a pregnant womans morality and those she seeks out for advice
#30
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 502
3
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
3
2
6
-->
@ebuc
Overpopulation is a myth. There's an issue with inefficient resource allocation and exploitation, not the amount of people in the world.

Overpopulation is promoted by rich elites who want to hog up all resources to preserve their glamorous decadent lifestyle of 5 enormous mansions, 30 yahtchs, and 10 private jets, while maximizing their business's profits (sustainability isn't profitable in global neoliberal capitalism).