WTF is Happening in Texas? 666 New Laws in Effect Today

[Fugus]

So, "Take a Test"?

Is he advocating for taxpayer funded weekly pregnancy tests to go along with tax payer funded birth control to give an actual viable way for "Take a test" to be a workable solution?

[Fugus]

Of course not. It's a woman tax that comes with being sexually active in any capacity.

I figured it was. It seems weird that after Machismo distracted this place for days and days on multiple threads and went as far as to endorse endangering children, that as soon as he is gone, these guys come come out again.

Or where they doing this then and Machismo just dominated the section to the point I missed them?

[Kathandira]

Mind your own uterus. Best line i've heard all week, and couldn't be more true.

[docterfreeze]

No one is being killed. Stop lying.

your comrade above says a human life is being taken.

- - - Updated - - -

So, "Take a Test"?

Is he advocating for taxpayer funded weekly pregnancy tests to go along with tax payer funded birth control to give an actual viable way for "Take a test" to be a workable solution?

if you want to talk to me then make it a reply.

yes to tax payer funded tests for rape victims, no to degen contraceptives.

[Darththeo]

No one is being killed. Stop lying.

It is the one thing he is correct on.
However, he doesn't understand the differences between a zygote, an embryo, a fetus, and a baby.

[Kathandira]

Another good one I heard recently.

In brain dead patients, consent to pull the plug is authorized. Heart can still be beating, and it does not matter. No brain, no life.

So for the "Heartbeat" believers in regards to a fetus, they should be asked how they feel about it not having a developed brain yet. No brain, no life.

[Queen of Hamsters]

Another good one I heard recently.

In brain dead patients, consent to pull the plug is authorized. Heart can still be beating, and it does not matter. No brain, no life.

So for the "Heartbeat" believers in regards to a fetus, they should be asked how they feel about it not having a developed brain yet. No brain, no life.

They don't have the capacity for deeper thought than "MUST STOP WOMEN'S BODILY AUTONOMY CUZ JESUS!"...

[Endus]

baby killing? so what. haha i love you people

If it were a human being, that wouldn't justify forcing pregnancy to continue. You can't force someone to donate blood or an organ, or to be hooked up as a human dialysis machine or something. That's the right to control the use of your own body, and it supercedes any right to life by any other human being. So even if you were right about it being a baby, you'd still be wrong about opposing abortion rights for women.

Of course, you're wrong about that, to boot, which makes the entire point moot. But it bears pointing out that even if you were right on this point, you'd still be egregiously, inhumanely, misogynistically wrong.

Stop pushing religious extremism.

[s_bushido]

yes to tax payer funded tests for rape victims, no to degen contraceptives.

The fuck is a "degen contraceptive?"

If it is what I think it is, do you honestly think that this "baby killing" and "sluts should just keep their legs closed" dogshit is convincing to anyone other than the religious extremists who promote this garbage? Oh, what's that, you wanted to pretend this issue isn't motivated by that as well? You've already dug your "no one should take my bullshit seriously on any level" hole deep enough. Stop digging.

[Noxx79]

your comrade above says a human life is being taken.

- - - Updated - - -



if you want to talk to me then make it a reply.

yes to tax payer funded tests for rape victims, no to degen contraceptives.

Are you in favor of mandatory organ donation?

[Endus]

Are you in favor of mandatory organ donation?

From living people. You've got a spare kidney and lung, so the government can just come in and take one, to save another person's life, right?

Opposing abortion demonstrates you have less respect for living women than you do for dead men, since you can't harvest organs from a body without their prior permission, or that of whoever is entitled to make those decisions for them.

[Lenonis]

It's amazing how proud people are of their ignorance of:
-contraception
-when you know you are pregnant
-how pregnancy tests work
-what science says about life beginning

And yet....no self awareness will ever creep in to cause a pause and thought of "well maybe I should do some research before continuing to spout off"

[Darththeo]

If it were a human being, that wouldn't justify forcing pregnancy to continue. You can't force someone to donate blood or an organ, or to be hooked up as a human dialysis machine or something. That's the right to control the use of your own body, and it supercedes any right to life by any other human being. So even if you were right about it being a baby, you'd still be wrong about opposing abortion rights for women.

Of course, you're wrong about that, to boot, which makes the entire point moot. But it bears pointing out that even if you were right on this point, you'd still be egregiously, inhumanely, misogynistically wrong.

Stop pushing religious extremism.

He is technically right. A zygote, embroyo, or fetus is a human being. They aren't babies, they could be a baby at some point but they aren't babies yet.

The rest of your point stands. We cannot harvest organs from a dead person to save a living one without the consent of the dead and even if they are listed as an organ donator, they may have only consented to certain organs or in some cases, family members can effectively override the dead's wishes to donate organs (legally, they can't, but most hospital will not force the issue). We can't force a person to give up a kidney or part of their liver to save another either.

We can't even force someone to donate blood.

[Endus]

He is technically right. A zygote, embroyo, or fetus is a human being. They aren't babies, they could be a baby at some point but they aren't babies yet.

I mean, by what definition?

Most legal definitions set "human being", personhood, and the possession of human rights, all at birth or near to it.

Is a fetus "human tissue"? Sure. So is a severed toe. Is it a "person"? Basically no legal systems agree that it is. For instance; miscarriages are not treated as homicides and the woman who miscarried is not generally investigated for that potential murder; if the fetus were a human being, a person, that would be standard practice.

Drawing that specific line is arbitrary, obviously, but that's my point of the "even if you're right, you're wrong" post. It doesn't matter where you choose to draw that line; it does not support any argument against abortion rights. Which you acknowledged in the bit I'm cutting off, I'm just restating, not "correcting" something you already acknowledged.

[Darththeo]

I mean, by what definition?

Most legal definitions set "human being", personhood, and the possession of human rights, all at birth or near to it.

Is a fetus "human tissue"? Sure. So is a severed toe. Is it a "person"? Basically no legal systems agree that it is. For instance; miscarriages are not treated as homicides and the woman who miscarried is not generally investigated for that potential murder; if the fetus were a human being, a person, that would be standard practice.

Drawing that specific line is arbitrary, obviously, but that's my point of the "even if you're right, you're wrong" post. It doesn't matter where you choose to draw that line; it does not support any argument against abortion rights. Which you acknowledged in the bit I'm cutting off, I'm just restating, not "correcting" something you already acknowledged.

You are conflating personhood with human being.
They are not synonyms in the legal sense.

[Endus]

You are conflating personhood with human being.
They are not synonyms in the legal sense.

I'm mentioning personhood as a comparable arbitrary line.

If you really want to pick nits, though, they're both treated the same in US law;
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

"Person" and "human being" are defined the exact same way.

[Darththeo]

I'm mentioning personhood as a comparable arbitrary line.

If you really want to pick nits, though, they're both treated the same in US law;
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

"Person" and "human being" are defined the exact same way.

You are misreading that law.

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development."

It is saying that the definition of person and human being must include everyone born alive as a member of the species. Not that is the sole definition only what the definition must include. So if you are born alive, you are by definition both a person and a human being. That does not define them the "exact same way." I am sorry, you are wrong here.

Using your logic, you are legally also legally a child forever because child is "defined the exact same way" as human being and person.

[Blur4stuff]

The heartbeat thing is just another bullshit lie. They don't really care about that. They want abortion to be illegal across the board. They seem to believe that humans gain a soul at conception.

If they honestly cared about something then it would be reflected in the law they created. So, what did they decide to allow? One example is a man can rape an underaged family member then sue her if she tries to get an abortion. I don't honestly think this would be a common occurrence, but the fact remains that republicans allow it when they don't have to.

There's a thousand other disgusting scenarios like that which republicans are allowing. This means they support it. If they didn't, it wouldn't be allowed.

[Darththeo]

The heartbeat thing is just another bullshit lie. They don't really care about that. They want abortion to be illegal across the board. They seem to believe that humans gain a soul at conception.

If they honestly cared about something then it would be reflected in the law they created. So, what did they decide to allow? One example is a man can rape an underaged family member then sue her if she tries to get an abortion. I don't honestly think this would be a common occurrence, but the fact remains that republicans allow it when they don't have to.

I have encountered someone who was asked about people who got pregnant from an abuser being forced to carry the abuser's child. He asked "Why would someone have sex with their abuser willingly?" They are convinced that a woman cannot get pregnant unless she wants to and only when they willingly submit to having sex.

[Noxx79]

The heartbeat thing is just another bullshit lie. They don't really care about that. They want abortion to be illegal across the board. They seem to believe that humans gain a soul at conception.

If they honestly cared about something then it would be reflected in the law they created. So, what did they decide to allow? One example is a man can rape an underaged family member then sue her if she tries to get an abortion. I don't honestly think this would be a common occurrence, but the fact remains that republicans allow it when they don't have to.

It’s not even a real heart. It’s literally just electrical signals. https://www.livescience.com/65501-fe...explained.html

https://www.businessinsider.com/texa...doctors-2021-9

One dude I was arguing with said “can a heart beat without a brain? No! Of course not! It has to have a working brain!” I’m hoping his mind was blown when I told him the very first lab we did in biology in college was remove a heart from a frog after popping it’s head off, while keeping it beating completely outside the body. Probably not though. These people don’t understand biology.