no more abortions!

[Maddhattter]

If it's for medical purposes, then I have no issue. If it's to perform an elective surgery that will, 100% of the time, result in the stopping of a heartbeat? Then you're on your own paying for it.

Why do you get to decide what biological services a woman is required to provide and what at what point in time, arbitrary as yours is, that she should be able to receive no assistance?

Honestly, as far as federal funding goes, I don't disagree with only providing federal assistance in cases of medical need and the allowances made by the Hyde clause. Beyond that (private funding of any kind), I no longer have any say how anyone else’s money is spent, nor do I have the right to remove a person’s bodily integrity. Does that have the unfortunate side effect of someone else loosing their life due to this choice? Sure. It can have that effect in any situation involving bodily integrity.

On a side note that’s more on topic: I’d imagine that if Abbott was so sure that this bill would survive the lawsuits being brought against it, he’d be more than happy to allow the statutes to be postponed a few months in order to validate his position rather than scramble to get an emergency session to get it pushed through.

[GhostTX]

The problem is, you are stuck on the for or against the issue, and you've missed the forest for the trees.

I'm not for abortion. Never said I was. I'm against government involvement. If the state and many voters decided that nothing good happens between 2 am and 5 am, and made it a mandatory blackout period with no travel or out door activities during that time without exigent circumstances, you would be against that, right?

I'm on the notion that abortion is outright a form of murder. The other stuff you mention, I would be against.

Unless you're against government involvement (laws) with murder?

[ELVIS]

madhatter, if i may, what is your age and what do you do for a living?

god bless.

[Maddhattter]

madhatter, if i may, what is your age and what do you do for a living?

god bless.

I'm 31(I'll be 32 in a couple of days) and I work in IT. I'm also married and the wife and I are financially self sufficient (not living with parents, we're buying the house we're in, etc). Why?

[ELVIS]

I'm 31(I'll be 32 in a couple of days) and I work in IT. I'm also married and the wife and I are financially self sufficient (not living with parents, we're buying the house we're in, etc). Why?

i was just wondering. based on most of your posts here you seem to be well educated. or you could be dumb as a stump too and we just share the same views on a couple of things.

god bless.

[Maddhattter]

i was just wondering. based on most of your posts here you seem to be well educated. or you could be dumb as a stump too and we just share the same views on a couple of things.

god bless.

My vote is always the latter. I know far less than I don't know but I'm working on that.

[talisman]

Greg Abbott is a fucking moron, just for the record.

[ceyko]

Why do you get to decide what....

This is one statement that is sort of annoying in regards to these debates. He does not get to decide, he gets to have an opinion and vote just like the rest of us.

I do wish *I* could decide all things, *I* would be very happy. (Until my bad decisions haunted me.)

[Maddhattter]

This is one statement that is sort of annoying in regards to these debates. He does not get to decide, he gets to have an opinion and vote just like the rest of us.

I do wish *I* could decide all things, *I* would be very happy. (Until my bad decisions haunted me.)

I completely understand your position and agree with you. I'm not intending to imply that he doesn't have a right to an opinion or to vote. I'm just trying to get down to why he feels that he has the right to arbitrarily subvert someone's bodily integrity.

My value of his opinion, and therefore desire to continue this conversation, is going to be based on the justification behind his reasoning. If his justification is from an unreasonable position, then there is no point in continuing this conversation. If it's based on a reasonable position, then that's the topic that needs to be discussed because this position is wholly dependent on the justification.

Sorry if I misconstrued my intent.

[Forever_frost]

Why do you get to decide what biological services a woman is required to provide and what at what point in time, arbitrary as yours is, that she should be able to receive no assistance?

Honestly, as far as federal funding goes, I don't disagree with only providing federal assistance in cases of medical need and the allowances made by the Hyde clause. Beyond that (private funding of any kind), I no longer have any say how anyone else’s money is spent, nor do I have the right to remove a person’s bodily integrity. Does that have the unfortunate side effect of someone else loosing their life due to this choice? Sure. It can have that effect in any situation involving bodily integrity.

On a side note that’s more on topic: I’d imagine that if Abbott was so sure that this bill would survive the lawsuits being brought against it, he’d be more than happy to allow the statutes to be postponed a few months in order to validate his position rather than scramble to get an emergency session to get it pushed through.

Who are they to decide that tax dollars get to go to killing a child?

[Forever_frost]

I completely understand your position and agree with you. I'm not intending to imply that he doesn't have a right to an opinion or to vote. I'm just trying to get down to why he feels that he has the right to arbitrarily subvert someone's bodily integrity.

My value of his opinion, and therefore desire to continue this conversation, is going to be based on the justification behind his reasoning. If his justification is from an unreasonable position, then there is no point in continuing this conversation. If it's based on a reasonable position, then that's the topic that needs to be discussed because this position is wholly dependent on the justification.

Sorry if I misconstrued my intent.

Interesting that you would say that. What would you call driving a drill into the skull of a child, vacuuming it's brains out, collapsing the skull, drag them out, cut the spinal cord and throwing the body in a trash can if not "subverting someone's bodily integrity?"

[racrguy]

Interesting that you would say that. What would you call driving a drill into the skull of a child, vacuuming it's brains out, collapsing the skull, drag them out, cut the spinal cord and throwing the body in a trash can if not "subverting someone's bodily integrity?"

I'd call it ridding the body of an unviable parasite.

[Forever_frost]

I'd call it ridding the body of an unviable parasite.

Okay, going by your theory, what was Gosnell convicted of if he's merely ridding the body of a parasite.

[racrguy]

Okay, going by your theory, what was Gosnell convicted of if he's merely ridding the body of a parasite.

He was found guilty of breaking the law. The only murder charges he was given were a result of him killing babies that were born live.

[Vertnut]

Okay, going by your theory, what was Gosnell convicted of if he's merely ridding the body of a parasite.

3 murder charges, along with 21 felony counts of "late term" abortions, and 211 counts of violating the "24 hour consent" law.