They were cool with it since they made zero mention of prohibiting the rather common practice.
Laws can be stepping on other rights and be declared uncons utional. This has happened with abortion law for a number of decades now.
There's no question the State has a right to protect human life (and when a clump of cells become human was always a sticky point), but it can't do so stepping on cons utional rights.
That's why Roe was a careful compromise between two perfectly valid rights colliding with each other.
This is how we got here. Using the legality of something in a "should" argument will get you here, since it presents a slippery slope. I don't think you meant to get here, but there have been plenty discussions on this board where legality was both the holy grail of righteousness (gun control law arguments) and something to ignore (this most recent version). Laws can indeed be uncons utional but they are still laws, so if legal = right, then anything legal is automatically right.
lol DMC makes his non-point.
Nobody argued legal=right/wrong, at least not me. That's a moral dilemma, not a legal one.
That law right now is the law of the land, and must be followed. It will be challenged. If it's found to be uncons utional, then it's going to be short-lived, no longer be the law of the land, and no longer needs to be followed. If it's enactment caused damage, then the State will have to respond for that damage.
DMC started punching at a straw man? No way.
panic!
Michael Scott : When I said that I wanted to have kids, and you said you wanted me to have a vasectomy, what did I do? And then, when you said that you might want to have kids, and I wasn't so sure, who had the vasectomy reversed? And then when you said you definitely didn't want to have kids? Who had it reversed back? Snip, snap! Snip, snap! Snip, snap! I did! You have no idea the physical toll that three vasectomies have on a person!
That one on the far left is a living doll.
I hate those 3 men with every ounce of my being.
Seldom meets another poster head on, the resort to artful restatement, deflection and strawman is usually instantaneous.
You got nary room, Winester.
tee, hee.
What the actual is your point here? This is some serious word salad.
'We need to do it':
Meet the Texas teen who helped sabotage an anti-abortion tip line
When an anti-abortion group last week created a “pro-life whistleblower” website encouraging people to anonymously report violations of Texas’ new six-week abortion ban, a group of politically active Texans noticed one potentially fatal flaw.
“They’re trying to use the internet to retaliate against people who were raised on the internet,” said Olivia Julianna, an 18-year-old student and activist from Sugar Land who is among the leadership of a group called “Gen-Z For Change.”
The group was formerly known as “TikTok for Biden.”
Olivia, who goes by only her first and middle names on social media due to safety concerns, said the goal was clear:
“This website, if we can mess with them in any way,
if we can stop even one woman from having a lawsuit filed against her or waste even a second of their time, we need to do it.”
https://www.expressnews.com/politics/texas/article/We-need-to-do-it-Meet-the-Texas-teen-who-16441764.php
sounds like a crude version of legal positivism whereby anything duly passed by a legislature is valid without qualification, merely by dint of of being agreed to by generally accepted authorities.
most people believe in a weak version of this, sounds like DMC holds a strong version.
The one on the far right looks like Dana Carvey
that's not how the law works for sake.
Reddit Bans Abortion Bounty Hunter Forum
"As a bounty hunter, would it be unethical to collect bounty on a perp that I impregnated?," one member wrote, after TXSB8 became law.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/jg83...y-hunter-forum
It is when this action takes place:::
Trump President.
Not Clinton.
yeah, so what?
they shut down the website anyway
Ever since:::
Trump President.
Not Clinton.
...the ends have justified the means for bouts and his people.
We're a society of laws... the feels or morals of the equation should be largely irrelevant, despite they not always are -ElNono
But a law is law until it's not a law. The feels or morals should be largely irrelevant.
Quite the opposite. I've been asking about right and wrong. ElNono leaned on law so I went that direction.
Funny how you two come along and pretend that didn't happen.. posters B and C.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
