Abbott being Abbott

[Anastasis 23718]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

No, absolutely nobody wants to meet us there. Not a single abortion regulation/law is genuine in that regard. It’s a divisive political stunt, and only a divisive political stunt. As evidenced by the same folks strident opposition to things that actually WOULD reduce abortion: sex ed and contraception.

We actually agree more than we disagree. 

[StassneyHorn 6767]

The law has as much of a chance of being upheld as the women on this board agreeing that only 3% of women are sexually assaulted (which I don’t know if you’ve heard doesn’t necessarily mean they were raped)

Edited May 21, 2021 by StassneyHorn

[hornmpa96 2667]

8 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

 

But seriously, it's my opinion and belief and how I lead in life as the paterfamilias. If that were to happen rather than hit the kill switch, I would redeem the child by raising it as my own. Your mileage may vary, and it appears to do so. I'm sorry that makes us mortal enemies or whatever in your mind.

Donkey - I can respect your opinion and belief here. More power to you and yours for raising that child if this were to ever happen to your family. However, why should your opinion  (and others who share that opinion) be forced on others who view things differently?

Your family has the freedom under the law to live out your views, but you’re happy that the law is infringing on others ability to act based on their opinion. 

When does life actually begin? If you believe that’s anytime before viability outside the womb, “that’s like your opinion man.”

[DonkeyCigars 143]

23 minutes ago, hornmpa96 said:

Donkey - I can respect your opinion and belief here. More power to you and yours for raising that child if this were to ever happen to your family. However, why should your opinion  (and others who share that opinion) be forced on others who view things differently?

Your family has the freedom under the law to live out your views, but you’re happy that the law is infringing on others ability to act based on their opinion. 

When does life actually begin? If you believe that’s anytime before viability outside the womb, “that’s like your opinion man.”

I actually had no idea this was in the works or being put into law until today; I don’t advocate or advance policy upon others one way or another. In this instance I just find a happy coincidence that the law is aligned to my personal and moral belief and am happy for the celebration of life and the potential the living babies might have. If the law doesn’t get upheld you won’t see me marching about it.

[StassneyHorn 6767]

It 1015, how was dinner and what do they think of your rape fantasy?

[workswithseed 2204]

44 minutes ago, StassneyHorn said:

It 1015, how was dinner and what do they think of your rape fantasy?

Making more shit up it seems. You gonna go all Pop Squad and kill children? 

[elfenix 34749]

Not really Abbott (just a supporting role here) but I can't find the general Texas government is shit thread:
 

Quote

Houston and Harris County officials said the Texas General Land Office informed them Thursday they would receive nothing from the more than $1.3 billion in applications they submitted for federal flood mitigation funding the state is disbursing.

Instead, about $1 billion in U.S. Housing and Urban Development funds the GLO is managing will flow to other local governments in 46 Southeast Texas counties that are eligible for the aid. Four smaller municipalities in east Harris County — Pasadena, Jacinto City, Galena Park and Baytown — will receive about $90 million combined.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Houston-and-Harris-County-asked-for-1-3B-in-16192647.php#photo-21019935

Edited May 21, 2021 by elfenix

[StassneyHorn 6767]

WWS google goatse for me, and then weld a statue of it for yourself 

Edited May 21, 2021 by StassneyHorn

[mchookem 16765]

49 minutes ago, elfenix said:

Not really Abbott (just a supporting role here) but I can't find the general Texas government is shit thread:
 

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Houston-and-Harris-County-asked-for-1-3B-in-16192647.php#photo-21019935

now why on earth are they screwing Harris County and giving all the money to smaller surrounding counties??  hmmm i wonder...🤔

jfc our leaders are just pure evil

ETA: any of our republican friends live in Houston? care to weigh in?

Edited May 21, 2021 by mchookem

[NameAlreadyInUse 5169]

Asked and answered.

[mchookem 16765]

well...

[workswithseed 2204]

2 hours ago, StassneyHorn said:

WWS google goatse for me, and then weld a statue of it for yourself 

Got it done in about 10 minutes.

1 hour ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

Asked and answered.

 

[South Austin 53222]

8 hours ago, StassneyHorn said:

The law has as much of a chance of being upheld as the women on this board agreeing that only 3% of women are sexually assaulted (which I don’t know if you’ve heard doesn’t necessarily mean they were raped)

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

6 hours ago, elfenix said:

Not really Abbott (just a supporting role here) but I can't find the general Texas government is shit thread:
 

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Houston-and-Harris-County-asked-for-1-3B-in-16192647.php#photo-21019935

I read the article; thank you for posting the link. It looked like a combined political snub and incompetency by the GLO "scoring" system. So standard operating procedure in Texas--we'll stick it to you one way or another.

[Homercles 10206]

13 hours ago, gmr548 said:

Man you really thought this was a slam dunk huh

Notice how few of those answers were statistically significant at even 0.95 confidence 

[gmr548 16698]

Not really Abbott (just a supporting role here) but I can't find the general Texas government is shit thread:
 

Houston and Harris County officials said the Texas General Land Office informed them Thursday they would receive nothing from the more than $1.3 billion in applications they submitted for federal flood mitigation funding the state is disbursing.

Instead, about $1 billion in U.S. Housing and Urban Development funds the GLO is managing will flow to other local governments in 46 Southeast Texas counties that are eligible for the aid. Four smaller municipalities in east Harris County — Pasadena, Jacinto City, Galena Park and Baytown — will receive about $90 million combined.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Houston-and-Harris-County-asked-for-1-3B-in-16192647.php#photo-21019935

The “share of population helped” metric is such a laughably transparent attempt to stick it to big cities/counties. Full on political patronage.

[safe sex 12007]

I might have missed someone else mentioning this, but I'd just like to bring attention to Donkey's phraseology around the concept of "redeeming the child," in the context of a birth precipitated by rape.

Redeem the child? That is seriously fucked up, but what else is new.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

9 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

I might have missed someone else mentioning this, but I'd just like to bring attention to Donkey's phraseology around the concept of "redeeming the child," in the context of a birth precipitated by rape.

Redeem the child? That is seriously fucked up, but what else is new.

Why is that phrase messed up to you? Which substitute would you recommend and I'll use that instead, if it helps.

You have a large group of people who think that a child created from a rape should be killed, implying the baby is unwanted and of an inferior make-up, unworthy of love because of the child's tragic origin (despite it being 100% not the child's fault). I'm saying that by this child being given a chance to live and fulfill whatever potential it might have, it could be redeemed through love and support instead of being snuffed out prematurely before his/her time.

Then again, I believe in a quasi-pre-destination existence where time, unironically stated, is indeed a flat circle. Or at least a mosaic.

Edited May 21, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

6 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

I might have missed someone else mentioning this, but I'd just like to bring attention to Donkey's phraseology around the concept of "redeeming the child," in the context of a birth precipitated by rape.

Redeem the child? That is seriously fucked up, but what else is new.

I don't know the frequency of pregnancy through incest, but again, the lack of an exception for either of those seems to reinforce the cruelty emphasis as opposed to any other foundation. Combining this piece of legislation with the transgender legislation, they are placing targets on the backs of those they wish to be subject to their cruelty while they place outside the law those they do not.

[TwiceHorn 32077]

19 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

It is wild how great of a point you think this is. I can find no other explanation for why you continue to say it despite the fact that it's an absolutely terrible argument.

It makes no sense whatsoever, it doesn't advance your overall position at all, and it is at its core completely juvenile in terms of its outlook on the world. Essentially what you're saying is "I admire women because they can do this thing I can't do so therefore we should require them to do that thing."

Your argument isn't powerful at all like you seem to think it is, it's actually bewildering.  Even from a general perspective, its basis is illogical. Being able to do something that half of nearly every mammalian species on the planet can do in one way or another isn't actually awesome or impressive.

Just an awesome pants-shitting performance by a usually intelligent poster.

I think we all agree that freedom is good.  It's "empowering."  It also includes the freedom to make bad choices, subjectively bad and objectively bad.  We don't condition freedom on making good choices, in most cases, crimes being the notable exception.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

2 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Why is that phrase messed up to you? Which substitute would you recommend and I'll use that instead, if it helps.

You have a large group of people who think that a child created from a rape should be killed, implying the baby is unwanted and of an inferior make-up, unworthy of love because of the child's tragic origin (despite it being 100% not the child's fault). I'm saying that by this child being given a chance to live and fulfill whatever potential it might have, it could be redeemed through love and support instead of being snuffed out prematurely before his/her time.

Then again, I believe in a quasi-pre-destination existence where time, unironically stated, is indeed a flat circle. Or at least a mosaic.

I grant you the consistency of your beliefs, and in one aspect I agree with you: when the baby is born I place no condemnation upon the circumstances of its birth and will advocate for whatever that baby needs. However, while the fetus is not viable outside the womb, I will not interfere with another's reproductive choice, nor is it my business to know that choice, the outcome of that choice, and the state should not be standing outside the medical office with their ear to the door either.

 The state should require public knowledge of the exact time, place, and amount of every emission by males and every episode of impotence by males so that the public can determine if potential lives are being lost. That sounds pretty silly because it is silly. Yet, the state and the citizenry are essentially now tracking women who become pregnant. How is that not an invasion of privacy?

[DonkeyCigars 143]

16 hours ago, Captainant said:

What is your definition of what is a person? Is it when the sperm hits the egg? Is it when the egg implants? Is it when the brain has developed sufficiently to the point where it's more than a bundle of reflexes?

I think this is the heart of the disconnect. 

Well, that, and a different set of views and values around the autonomy and self-determination of women.

This is the heart of the darkness that is the pro-life/pro-choice debate and problem.

There are very different, yet equally ardent and strident, core beliefs around this that inform entire worldviews, intertwined with faith and science and distorted mostly with the ignorance we all struggle with as human beings living in and on a world we don't understand.

Hearts and minds don't get changed very easily about most things, but I think with this matter it's even more entrenched on both sides. 

[safe sex 12007]

3 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Why is that phrase messed up to you? Which substitute would you recommend and I'll use that instead, if it helps.

You have a large group of people who think that a child created from a rape should be killed, implying the baby is unwanted and of an inferior make-up, unworthy of love because of the child's tragic origin (despite it being 100% not the child's fault). I'm saying that by this child giving a chance to live and fulfill whatever potential it might have, it could be redeemed through love and support instead of being snuffed out prematurely before his/her time.

No, I will not engage with you because we view the concept, value, and purpose of life in irreconcilable ways. It's easy to see from everything of yours that I've ever read that I have both a much fuller and more nuanced perspective on a human's life than you possibly ever could, but you don't actually care about listening to anyone who doesn't already match your value set. I will not waste my time.

That, and I don't want to deal with your whole...everything. You are the worst, and the only reason I don't have you on ignore is because other people engage with/quote you anyways, so what's the point? I'm going to see your bullshit either way, and sometimes I have something to say about it.

I will neg freely on any forum on this site if I think a post is fucked up, bigoted, in bad faith, or just bullshit. Anyone who complains about it is a child. They're fucking internet points.

 

[DonkeyCigars 143]

12 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

The state should require public knowledge of the exact time, place, and amount of every emission by males and every episode of impotence by males so that the public can determine if potential lives are being lost. That sounds pretty silly because it is silly. Yet, the state and the citizenry are essentially now tracking women who become pregnant. How is that not an invasion of privacy?

I keep hearing people say these things and I think they must surely be joking, because as we all know, semen that's been spent into a sock or a shower floor does not have a beating heart with interconnected nerves and feelings, no more than a woman should be harassed because her menstrual emissions discharge reproductive tissues and blood and an egg.

Edited May 21, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[safe sex 12007]

I am the cabal.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

3 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

No, I will not engage with you because we view the concept, value, and purpose of life in irreconcilable ways. It's easy to see from everything of yours that I've ever read that I have both a much fuller and more nuanced perspective on a human's life than you possibly ever could, but you don't actually care about listening to anyone who doesn't already match your value set. I will not waste my time.

That, and I don't want to deal with your whole...everything. You are the worst, and the only reason I don't have you on ignore is because other people engage with/quote you anyways, so what's the point? I'm going to see your bullshit either way, and sometimes I have something to say about it.

I will neg freely on any forum on this site if I think a post is fucked up, bigoted, in bad faith, or just bullshit. Anyone who complains about it is a child. They're fucking internet points.

 

And, hey, that's fair. I don't know your positions or stances on things as well as you seem to know mine, but I get that for some people, sometimes you can be too philosophically far apart to have productive and healthy discourse. I respect that. Peace.

Edited May 21, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[Da Fino 2820]

13 hours ago, mchookem said:

ok...is nobody else tripping that the Bible provides instructions for how to induce an abortion?? i'm still floored 😳 

ETA: or did everybody but me already know this lol.

It's the old testament. It's full of wacky shit. 

[Anastasis 23718]

1 hour ago, Homercles said:

Notice how few of those answers were statistically significant at even 0.95 confidence 

[Biff Tannen 46165]

If we’re done talking about abortion, I’d just like to add that it’s fucked up that I don’t pay as much attention to state politics, you know, the stuff that probably affects me much more, because I know that my state goes out of its way to ignore me and the vast majority of people in my community. Ignore is the best case scenario. Actively discriminate and/or punish is also apt. And there is fuck all I can do about it from an electoral standpoint. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

11 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I keep hearing people say these things and I think they must surely be joking, because as we all know, semen that's been spent into a sock or a shower floor does not have a beating heart with interconnected nerves and feelings, no more than a woman should be harassed because her menstrual emissions discharge reproductive tissues and blood and an egg.

It is comparative; many species have a beating heart with interconnected nerves and feelings and we kill them. We kill them for food and for pleasure because we can. You may argue that as a Christian I recognize that the Lord gave dominion to humans over the earth but my argument is the State is sticking its nose into that dominion. It's also  only from that specific one singular perspective for it condones the killing of other humans through a variety of means.

I actually prefer Anastasis remarks about coming towards a compromise of lessening abortions through proactive measures because as I mentioned earlier--most Americans are not for abortion, per se. However, I have yet to see much if anything in the form of proactive measures. What I see are a lot of cruel and punishing and shaming people in power who take advantage of those who have a sincere belief regarding their views on life/conception/etc and then use that power to cudgel others.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

Also. Sorry Biff. I'm done now.

Abbott sucks.

[Brisketexan 106890]

51 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I actually prefer Anastasis remarks about coming towards a compromise of lessening abortions through proactive measures because as I mentioned earlier--most Americans are not for abortion, per se. However, I have yet to see much if anything in the form of proactive measures. What I see are a lot of cruel and punishing and shaming people in power who take advantage of those who have a sincere belief regarding their views on life/conception/etc and then use that power to cudgel others.

That's because the "abortion debate" is not about reducing the number of abortions, or protecting the lives of children.  Not even in the slightest.

Make me poobah of slashing the number of abortions, and protecting children?  Cool.  1 -- good sex ed, not magical thinking.  2 -- readily available cheap/free contraception, which is also taught in real sex ed.  3 -- mandatory maternity leave for ALL jobs.  4 -- free childcare (maybe tie it to income level, maybe not -- but the point is, a single mom shouldn't have to choose between getting an abortion or going broke because she can't work without childcare).  5 -- a real, functional child-support apparatus -- the sperm donor is EXACTLY as responsible for a child as the mother.  Make that actually happen.  I've got others.

But if we do those, we'll see the number of abortions plummet, both because women won't have as many unwanted pregnancies, and will have the means to carry a pregnancy to term without suffering financial/work/educational consequences.

There is a reason that the "pro-life" movement spends functionally ZERO energy and effort pushing for ANY of those measures (and in fact, actively working AGAINST them).  BECAUSE IT'S NOT ABOUT BEING "PRO-LIFE."  IT NEVER HAS BEEN.  It's about a re-assertion of power, almost entirely based on a desired gender dynamic.  Women should keep their legs shut, and if they don't, the consequences are on them, and we're gonna tell them so.  Male consequences?  What, are you some sorta commie fag?

[Fudge Nuggets 19455]

This thread bores me. 

[Brisketexan 106890]

7 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

This thread bores me. 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19305]

20 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I understand what you are saying. I just don't agree. I think you are wrong. Let's just leave it at that. Good luck out there;  hope everything works out for you!

And I think you are a patronizing asshole - see the last part of your sentence.  The truth is, people like you who are like, "I just don't agree, I think you are wrong." are full of fucking shit.  Mrs. Wiggins post just down thread is absolutely spot on.  Men want to restrict women, but would not abide by any fucking restrictions on themselves. They like having an underclass of people to serve them.  

 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19305]

20 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Males and their irresponsible ejaculations are responsible for unwanted pregnancies.  Men orgasm and could impregnate multiple women in one day. Abortion and male birth control and men's distaste for male birth control is a large part of the equation.

THIS RIGHT FUCKING HERE.

[Brisketexan 106890]

2 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

THIS RIGHT FUCKING HERE.

I would support legislation whereby a man who knowingly has unprotected sex with a woman who he does not have a pre-existing financial relationship (spouse) is liable for reckless endangerment if a pregnancy (which may be terminated by abortion) occurs.  It shall be an affirmative defense if you can prove you used a condom, or believed that other contraception method was in place.  Otherwise, you have taken an unreasonable risk of creating an unwanted pregnancy, which is the starting point for every abortion.

Y'all good with that?  If women have to live with the consequences of their "foolish decision to open their legs and get pregnant,"  then men should face consequences as well.  Right?

[Dahobbs 18319]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

I would support legislation whereby a man who knowingly has unprotected sex with a woman who he does not have a pre-existing financial relationship (spouse) is liable for reckless endangerment if a pregnancy (which may be terminated by abortion) occurs.  It shall be an affirmative defense if you can prove you used a condom, or believed that other contraception method was in place.  Otherwise, you have taken an unreasonable risk of creating an unwanted pregnancy, which is the starting point for every abortion.

Y'all good with that?  If women have to live with the consequences of their "foolish decision to open their legs and get pregnant,"  then men should face consequences as well.  Right?

Didn't Abbott just sign that law? I'm pretty sure you could actually bring that as a lawsuit now. 

[Brisketexan 106890]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

Didn't Abbott just sign that law? I'm pretty sure you could actually bring that as a lawsuit now. 

I looked at the text.  It's a close call, but you could make the argument.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19305]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I would support legislation whereby a man who knowingly has unprotected sex with a woman who he does not have a pre-existing financial relationship (spouse) is liable for reckless endangerment if a pregnancy (which may be terminated by abortion) occurs.  It shall be an affirmative defense if you can prove you used a condom, or believed that other contraception method was in place.  Otherwise, you have taken an unreasonable risk of creating an unwanted pregnancy, which is the starting point for every abortion.

Y'all good with that?  If women have to live with the consequences of their "foolish decision to open their legs and get pregnant,"  then men should face consequences as well.  Right?

I completely agree.  Or, you know, we could just not restrict abortions.  Seems a lot easier.

[wildcat09 29579]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I looked at the text.  It's a close call, but you could make the argument.

Until a judge laughed you out of court.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

20 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

And I think you are a patronizing asshole - see the last part of your sentence.  The truth is, people like you who are like, "I just don't agree, I think you are wrong." are full of fucking shit.  Mrs. Wiggins post just down thread is absolutely spot on.  Men want to restrict women, but would not abide by any fucking restrictions on themselves. They like having an underclass of people to serve them.  

 

Just because you don't agree doesn't mean you are right and I am wrong, and visa versa. It's relative to our core personal values. So just because I think you are wrong and full of it, like you think I am, I don't think it merits rude behavior.

[Brisketexan 106890]

8 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

I completely agree.  Or, you know, we could just not restrict abortions.  Seems a lot easier.

Perhaps you didn't get the "the cruelty is the point" memo.  I coulda sworn you were on the routing sheet.  I'll get that fixed toot sweet.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Perhaps you didn't get the "the cruelty is the point" memo.  I coulda sworn you were on the routing sheet.  I'll get that fixed toot sweet.

Is it not cruel to kill a baby with a heart beat though, black-and-white, cut-and-dried?

That's the other memo going around that missed the BrisketTexan desk.

I guess even the idea of cruelty is relative.

[WhatTheBuck 28929]

2 hours ago, Da Fino said:

It's the old testament. It's full of wacky shit. 

Unlike the NewTestament?

[Brisketexan 106890]

3 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Is it not cruel to kill a baby with a heart beat though, black-and-white, cut-and-dried?

That's the other memo going around that missed the BrisketTexan desk.

I guess even the idea of cruelty is relative.

When the policy is "carry the pregnancy to term, all obligations and consequences are on you by force of state law, but that same state provides no meaningful support to ameliorate those consequences," then yes, the cruelty is the point.  

It's why I contrasted with some of the experiences I've had and seen with the Catholic church -- they KNOW that requiring a woman to carry the burden and cost of pregnancy is a very real thing, and in my experience, they provide the support and accommodation to relieve that.  E.g., I had a peer at a catholic school get pregnant - instead of punishing her, interfering with her education, and imposing additional costs/consequences on her, they accommodated and supported her throughout, allowing her to make up missed work when had to miss time to give birth, and a lot more.  So that she could have the baby and give it up for adoption.  If you do BOTH those things, then you are pro-life.  If you only impose the burden and consequences, but actively oppose anything that would actually limit unwanted pregnancies or support pregnant women in crisis, then the cruelty is the point.  Pay attention to what people actually do, not the bullshit slogan or label they claim.

Signed, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

[Da Fino 2820]

5 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Unlike the NewTestament?

[mchookem 16765]

23 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Is it not cruel to kill a baby with a heart beat though, black-and-white, cut-and-dried?

That's the other memo going around that missed the BrisketTexan desk.

I guess even the idea of cruelty is relative.

well yesterday i learned that God's okay with it and has provided instructions if your wife is a whore and gets knocked up by somebody else. 

but he is one cruel motherfucker, so sure, it's all relative. 

[elfenix 34749]

13 minutes ago, mchookem said:

but he is one cruel motherfucker, so sure, it's all relative. 

he did send a couple bears to maul 42 boys for telling elijah he was bald as elijah was on his way to the the house of el, which got retconned to house of yahweh. 

Edited May 21, 2021 by elfenix

[justhookit 4206]