Pro-life Texas lawmaker introduces bill imposing death penalty for abortion

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by JazzMan1221, Mar 14, 2021.

  1. GabrielQ

    GabrielQ I need me some PIE!

    @Ohmin You seem to be fixated on how the profilactic measures aren't 100% effective, but again, they hardly are. What is undeniable is 2 things: Covid is the third leading cause of death in the united states, only behind cancer and heart diseases. So whatever you think about the mortality rates, the efectiveness of the treatments, covid is killing a lot of people, a crazy amount of people in fact, more than accidents.
    So when you sabotage these measures because they don't guarantee immunity you are aiding to keep covid as that third leading cause of death. You keep insisting masks don't work because they can't filter covid, yet I already explained to you that they drastically reduce the radius of spreading of saliva droplets, which carry the disease. Vaccines do help with those things you mentioned, just not 100%.
    You asked me how many people took their lives because of the measures taken to alleviate covid, and I don't know, but there were less suicides in 2020 than in 2019 (which surprises me).

    Also the other day I read that fetuses start to have brain activity around the 25 weeks mark, so that would make for a reasonable upper boundary for an abortion process.

    You like to point out my supposed incongruencies, but what about yours?
    Right now you are coming across as a person who is adamant about the slightest challenge to his body autonomy but it's happy to impose on others, and these things are in complete different scales altogether (getting a vaccine + wearing a mask to shop vs being pregnant and giving birth). And given your sayings about how chances of people dying or not are slim enough that you won't even try means that you have relative valoration of human lives.
    This of course ignoring all the other practical stuff based on which lawmakers should've decided instead of whatever criteria they chose.
  2. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    Indeed. If we only did things that were 100% effective in all situations, we'd basically do nothing. That's not how the real world works.
  3. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    Irrelevant. Tests are available with reasonable accuracy. Or, again, don't allow your partner to ejaculate inside in the first place. While I know that passions and/or stupidity (or ****) can be a factor against this option...

    You do realize that there have been rallies for this law by women as well, yes?

    Women are not a monolithic political bloc. They, like men, have different opinions on a variety of matters.

    Besides, the point isn't what women think anyway. It's about whether or not an innocent child should be allowed to be killed for the convenience of others. Just because there are some women that feel strongly they should be allowed to do so doesn't make it right. And if necessary, those same women can (and probably already have) vote for different legislators to block/repeal what the legislature has done.

    On a related note, at least some of the women against this legislation have sworn off sex with men until such a time as it is repealled or nullified by the courts.

    Which causes me to ask: if they have such willpower and determination to not succumb to their base desires for this purpose... why do they lack it when it comes to avoiding getting an unwanted pregnancy in the first place? I've always been assured that "abstinance doesn't work" for the majority because they lack the will and resolve, and thus it isn't a viable option to reduce unwanted pregnancies... yet some women at least claim to have the will and resolve to practice abstinance at least until such a time as they can freely kill their own undesired children. A strange turn of events on this point.

    Of course, such persons do not necessarily represent the whole of the movement... and likewise, that movement does not necessarily represent the whole of, or even a majority of, texan women; let alone the population of Texas.

    According to your vast network of information on the Texas legislature's practices?

    Sokolov recently encouraged me to be skeptical of information found... and I find it rathy easy to practice such in this case.

    By the way, you have yet to tell me how any of this serves to increase the "pleasure" of the "unprincipled" legislators that voted for this. I asked this of you quite a while ago and I don't recall seeing any answer.

    Given that the main justification you've given to support abortion thus far is that "sex happens and thus there are plenty of unwanted pregnancies" such a limitation on abortion would seem to serve to decrease sex (at least if the above mentioned sub-group of pro-abortion activists are any indication); and given that sexual gratification is one of the primary ways in which many seek pleasure... a reduction in this without comensurate increase in another "pleasure" seems to go against that accusation.
  4. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    "Whatever I think of mortality rates."

    I think they are vastly inflated. Considering that a "COVID Death" is publicly acknowledged to not necessarily be caused by COVID. It merely refers to someone that tested "positive" via PCR or antibody tests shortly before or after their death. In other words, even people that die from unrelated injuries and ilnesses are considered "COVID Deaths."

    This not only inflates mortality rates, but also the totality of deaths attributed to the disease. Including in some cases, deaths from gun-shot wounds or automotive accidents would be attributed as "COVID Deaths"

    In reality, the CDC had acknowledged last year that only 6% of their recieved death certificates (which might also be inflated for other reasons), were due to COVID only. The other 94% of deaths were acknowledged to have on after 2-3 other morbidities, or additional causes of death (if not flat out alternative causes of death).

    This also does not account for any false positives that may inflate the numbers as well. Or misdiagnosis of COVID.

    I have sabotaged nothing. I do not prevent anyone from getting it if they so choose. I might argue against it based on it's obvious lack of efficacy and the visible toll it can and has caused in those that take it, but I do not seek to ban the substance nor make it unavailable to anyone that does want it.

    Take your base accusations elsewhere.

    No I'm not. The supposed vaccine has no proven efficacy for preventing spread of the disease. The only attribute currently claimed by those pushing it is, in fact, to reduce symptoms if you contract the disease. Given I haven't died of COVID, nor have I spread COVID to anyone that has subsequently died from it, I have don't absolutely nothing to maintain nor increase the number of deaths attributed to the disease.

    Saliva droplets are not the primary means of transmission. They aren't even a large chunk of it. Aerisolized viral particals floating in the air are the primary vector, by a huge margin. And masks do absolutely nothing to reduce either the introduction of such particles, or the inhalation of said particles.

    Even if saliva droplets WERE the primary vector, that would only matter for those manifesting symptoms. There is no indication that any viable amount of viral matieral would com in saliva droplets of those that are not symptomatic.

    Do they actually? Because so far the majority of people getting hospitalized or testing positive are those WITH the vaccine, not without it. Even if they do, by how much? 90%? 50%? 10%? 0.0001%

    You've provided no data to show "how much" they allegedly help. You've merely insisted that they do without verifiable evidence to back up that claim.

    While a jaded response... I feel confidant many suicides were labeled "COVID deaths."

    I can tell you that there was a 12-fold increase of suicides last year in a county near me. However, overall information has been hard to come by.

    It could be, but it's just as arbitrary as a heartbeat. The simple reality is as follows: There's no set understanding of when a "human becomes a person." Either one must go by a purely subjective method (in which case one cannot criticize others for their own subjective valuations... meaning if Texas says 6 weeks or what have you, one must abide by it... at least until one can get a different legislature in to change it). Or, as with most things, there is an objective point it happens which we simply don't know yet. In the latter, such an objective valuation would not be determined by humans, but by natural laws, or spiritual laws. Without a way to know (at present) when that is it would be better to err on the side of not killing innocent children.

    You didn't answer my question though. You say you "read that the other day" but you seemed pretty solid on the 6-7 month period, so am I correct in guessing that you had that figure in your mind before reading that article? If so, why?

    I don't want people to mess with my body without my permission, it's true. I also don't know of any child which has given their permission to be killed while in the womb. Were I somehow made to bear a human life inside my body, without a safe way to remove it without killing that human life, I would bear it as long as I could, and would not be concerned with anyone issue a law requiring me to do so.

    Likewise, you too seem to think that at some point a woman must bear their child to term (barring some sort of triage situation). This is again because you, like myself recognize that at least at SOME POINT that child is a "person" and should be afforded the same right to live as any other.

    However, you don't seem to have any real idea of WHEN that might be the case. You have theories, and those theories work within what you feel is "convenient" from what you've heard or studied on the topic. Yet again, if it is a subjective valuation, than you have no place to accuse Texas of wrong-doing for having subjectively identified 6-weeks, even if it is "inconvenient."

    On the other hand, I'd rather not risk killing a person, or even something that is becoming a person. Because even if they are inside someone, or bonded to them, they have rights. Just as conjoined twins have rights independent of eatch other, even if they share the same body, or even internal organs in some cases. Neither has the right to kill the other (even if it would "help" prevent them from suffering).

    It isn't "convenient"... but convenience is not worth killing someone over. Or, for that matter, denying people their rights, even when they are not yet born.

    As for the vaccine and masks...

    I don't kill anyone when I choose not to use them. You say that there is a chance that someone might die if I don't do these things. Yet this is not a proven certainty. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence that neither of those measures are even effective, but what if they were?

    If they were, than others can choose to use them and be "safe" from any threat I would theoretically pose. If they choose not to, the same as me, than we have chosen that risk ourselves. No unborn child is allowed to make a choice of whether to live or die for the sake of their mother. That is forced on them just as you would wish to force a vaccine on me.

    On the other hand, if a woman is pregnant, in most cases (except ****) it is a result of their own choices, their own acceptance of risks associated with their actions. If they did not wish to have that risk they should have made different choices. Gotten a proceedure to prevent pregnancies on themselves, required their mate to follow certain practices (and if not, see the **** issue again). Perhaps gotten into lesbianism, etc.

    Most people, for this reason, make allowances for **** victims while being against other abortion practices; and I can understand why. I somewhat differ however, because I do not think that killing an innocent third party is a good solution to resolving the trauma. Adding on "and I killed someone" to "I was a victim of a heinous and evil act" isn't generally going to solve the problem. A victim should be afforded aid, not just for the pregnancy but to deal with the trauma.

    Because again, that child is given no say in whether or not it wishes to die for the sake of their mother. Perhaps if they could be asked and respond, they might agree to it, but in the absence of such an agreement, I cannot condone the act. Because it is a disgusting and horrid thing, for a woman's body to be violated so (or really, anyone's body)... but violating another, innocent, human's body only adds to the pain and misery.

    In statistics, it is often noted that those who were victims of abuse, are ones that perpetrate it later on. It's better to break that cycle. Both for the woman and the child.

    It is not something that is easy, and I don't pretend it is. But it is to save a life, and to prevent a woman from adding the guilt of killing an innocent to her already injured self.

    Valoration? Do you mean Valuation?

    Even assuming Valuation I'm not entirely certain what you mean here. Are you saying that I value lives more or less relative to other (human) lives? Or that I value lives in general?

    I will do my best to respond as I can. I do not value human life in an absolute sense. Human rights as a whole, are more important than "staying alive." Humans have fought fiercely for and against the rights of others throughout history, dying by the millions in some cases; because most of the time, it is better to die fighting for freedom and justice, than to live as a slave. There are people that choose slavery however. And as long as it is their choice, I won't try to force them to do otherwise.

    Those that have no ability to give a choice, need others to fight for them, whether politically or even physically if necessary. If it comes down to defending myself or others, I would be willing to kill someone that was attacking... but I would not willingly kill someone that was innocent of any crime. While I would, if able, be willing to forgive those who attacked me or those around me, I would still defend myself and others against their attack.

    So long as your attempt to force me to do something is in the political, and not the physical realm, I will defend myself in like manner. If you were to come at me with a blowgun filled with darts or something, I would try to evade and avoid conflict as much as possible, but I would be willing to kill you if there was no other option. Not just for my own body, but to protect you from violating the rights of others in the process. Whether you succeeded or not, I would be willing to forgive you... but I would stand up for my rights, and the rights of others which you seem to think of as trivial or unimportant in the face of emergencies.

    Those that seek to violate the rights of others effectively forfeit their own rights.

    But a growing child in the womb is always innocent. There is no way for them to forfeit their rights by commiting crimes. Nor anyway way for them to give their consent to be killed. So we cannot assume that their rights are thus null and void. And those rights are worth fighting for, the same as our right to not have the government determine our medication, or to have employment or access to education reliant on taking specific medication without proof of both efficacy and necessity on an individual basis.

    There are already pros and cons to law. Allowing abortion means that women will be preasured by family, significant others, even their employers or local governments to get rid of the child for their own convenience. So long as there is any period of time which does not allow for an abortion, there will always be the potential for any of the problems that come with a full ban, during that window. Further, there is the question of how much, if any, say a father should have in terms of whether an abortion is carried out. It is, after all, equally their child even if they don't bear it in their body.

    Ultimately however, "practicality" is not always the primary concern when it comes to laws, especially laws which codify human rights.

    Particularly since what seems practical for one group of people is not necessarily practical to another.

    When you rely on subjective valuation of what is a right and what is not a right, you end up with whatever the government says it is... and that sort of tyranny is what this nation's founding was opposed to.
  5. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    When you want to force someone to do something, at least prove it does what you intend it to do. In the mean time, it's true that you won't, 100% sure, be struck my lightning in the next year, but do you mind f I lobby the government to forcably lock you in a rubber room? It's for your own good you know, and I don't want you to accidentally conduct lightning through your body and get it to contact someone else.

    It's funny really, that you both jump on the "100%" thing...

    It is not a 100% certainty that I'll get COVID (indeed, particularly not since I most likely already have an acquired natural immunity), it's not 100% that I'll pass it on to someone else if I do get COVID. It's not 100% that such a person will be vulnerable to that disease and thus die from it or have long-lasting injury. It's not 100% that regardless they would in turn also pass it to someone else.

    So why do you insist I "MUST" undergo specific medical treatments and proceedures?

    We don't do things that are only 100% guarunteed to work, that's true. I wouldn't bother talking with any of you if it were since it's not a 100% guaruntee that I'll get either of you to actually consider anything I say.

    But both of you want to force me to undergo a proceedure I neither want nor need, based on an unknown possibility that someone else might get sick if I don't. Yet at the same time, there is an equally unknown possibility that it will never happen regardless of whether I subject myself to your tyranny. And there's an unknown chance of my dying from the shot or having severe sideeffects short of death, which you likewise dismiss.

    None of those are 100% chances... so which path should I take? The one that you want? Or the one that I want?

    I'm not "doing nothing." I'm opperating on how I see the probabilities lined up. You see differently, that's your right. But when you try to force me to do what you want, YOU are the one that has to prove why it's necessary. I'm not preventing you from getting the shots if you want them. While they seem at best far less useful than either of you seem to think they are, from my perspective, I'm not trying to force you to do anything, other than respect my and others' rights. And I'm pretty sure that history has already proven why that is necessary.

    You (the "general you", not anyone in particular) want to argue that it is a right to choose to kill children, that will be on your head unless and until you repent of it. You want to argue it is a right to force others to take medication, that too will be on your head unless and until you repent of it. For my part, as an act of will, I can forgive you, though I won't stop fighting (at least politically and with my words) against these two things which are an abomination and wholly evil things you want to enshrine. I do not beleive it will ever get to the point of violence, and I'm not sure, if it's only myself threatened at the time, if I'd fight physically or not. But I know that when you see God (which you will, whether you believe in Him or not), unless you repent, you'll need to answer for these words of yours, and any other actions you've taken in support of these evils.

    The choice is ultimately yours. And it will remain until your last breath is gone. May God bless us all with love, joy, wisdom, understanding, and revelation.
  6. GabrielQ

    GabrielQ I need me some PIE!

    Funny that you use the lightning argument, when profilactic measures against ligthning are (or were) mandated in a quite widespread manner even when the chance of being hit by lightning even if you are a tall building is abismal. But returning to topic, if you deny that covid deaths are significant there's no point to argue anymore, because that is a irreconciliable point.

    Rest assured I fear no judgement for my thoughts or actions, be either by gods or humans.
  7. chickenpox2

    chickenpox2 I need me some PIE!

    Like I said you value opinion of a woman less than a useless fetus
  8. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    It is extremely difficult to talk to someone when they disagree with the fundamental verifiable facts of a subject.

    I find the skepticism about the number of deaths really interesting, because it tends to come in 3 forms:
    1. They are lying about the numbers to scare us
    2. They are lying about the numbers for $$$
    3. The numbers are real but overstated because it isn't just COVID
    The first 2 are kind of similar, and both tend to focus on various reasons we may be overcounting but ignoring the various reason we may be undercounting (in particular in areas where testing has been or still is lacking).

    In general, all of it tends to ignore corroborating evidence of the impact COVID has had in terms of hospitalization rates and ICU capacity, as well as most notably excess deaths.

    Honestly, if all these excess deaths' primary driver wasn't COVID, we should be really concerned since we have no bloody clue why millions are dropping dead.
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2021
  9. profhulk

    profhulk Forum Royalty

    Yea you should value a woman's opinion less than a fetus, because they always vote against their own best interests and are easily tricked. Just look at these women foaming at the mouth to kill their own babies. The spiritually evacuated minions that run this place knew exactly what they were doing when they led women's suffrage movement for women's rights. The only reason women were pushed into the work force and given a vote was 1. The bankers could not resist the taxable income that would be provided, 2. Women always vote safety over freedom it is genetically hardwired into their DNA, and 3. When the man is not following god where the woman goes so goes the man and so goes the child and thus the trap is set.
    Bushido likes this.
  10. GabrielQ

    GabrielQ I need me some PIE!

    Idk news showing mass graves were pretty common before covid too. That and rows of beds filling the corridors of hospitals. Perfectly normal.
  11. GabrielQ

    GabrielQ I need me some PIE!

    what if the fetus is female too?
    Ohmin likes this.
  12. chickenpox2

    chickenpox2 I need me some PIE!

    This is a good look at abortion

    What Texans and pro life people don't understand is that disallowing abortion they (pregnant women) will find a way to do it to themselves. At that point they don't care what people will say even if inflict self harm.
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2021
  13. chickenpox2

    chickenpox2 I need me some PIE!

    That's the most backward thinking ideology I heard
  14. GabrielQ

    GabrielQ I need me some PIE!

  15. JazzMan1221

    JazzMan1221 Better-Known Member

    My Grandfather smoked his whole life; said it was the only thing he truly enjoyed. After I was born, my mother said to him, "If you ever want to see your grandchildren graduate, you have to stop today." Tears welled up in his eyes when he realized what exactly was at stake. He gave it up immediately. On my 8th birthday he died of lung cancer. It was really sad and almost destroyed me, because we were very close. At his funeral my mother said to me: "Don't ever smoke. Please don't put your family through what your grandfather put us through." I agreed. At 28, I have never touched a cigarette. I must say, I feel a very slight sense of regret for never having done it, because this comment gave me cancer anyway.
    Ohmin likes this.
  16. profhulk

    profhulk Forum Royalty

    "The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. Dust to dust. Ashes to ashes. "

    -Josey Wales
  17. profhulk

    profhulk Forum Royalty

    The irony of all of this support for abortion is the same people who support this demonic agenda are the ones who are getting the dead babies injected right back into their bodies via useless vaccinations. Yes that's right the dead babies whose murders are supported are being shot right back into those same types of people via flu shots and vaccines "The circle of life". Yes that is correct the dead fetal cells are used to manufacture your flu shots and vaccines. If you want the charts that have the ingredient breakdown I can go look that up to space cadets.

    Look this up if you are feeling frisky. Nice search terms to put in any search engine.



  18. themacca

    themacca Master of Challenges

    You are on some kind of ****ed up drugs dude. Jesus christ
  19. JazzMan1221

    JazzMan1221 Better-Known Member

    I take back what I said. THIS comment gave me cancer.
  20. Bushido

    Bushido Devotee of the Blood Owl

    Most ppl are too indoctrinated with propaganda to relate to anything you are saying, and those that aren't are in a bunker already.

Share This Page