Senator and online community wins justice

[BirdOPrey5]

I do respect that woman for stepping up and actually going 11+ hours on that filibuster because it is something she believes in.

However, a filibuster but definition is anti-democratic. A filibuster was required because had the elected representatives of the people been allowed to vote, the bill would have passed. Filibuster is a tool that lets the minority override the majority if they feel REALLY strongly about something.

At least on Texas they make you actually have to work at it. In the US Senate no one has to actually talk anymore.

 

[Adam Howard]

I do respect that woman for stepping up and actually going 11+ hours on that filibuster because it is something she believes in.

However, a filibuster but definition is anti-democratic. A filibuster was required because had the elected representatives of the people been allowed to vote, the bill would have passed. Filibuster is a tool that lets the minority override the majority if they feel REALLY strongly about something.

At least on Texas they make you actually have to work at it. In the US Senate no one has to actually talk anymore.

Our current government is anti-democratic.

This is a fine example when that minority is actually doing their job and representing the majority... Elected officials are elected to represent the majority, but that is NOT what was happening and so yes, 1 person stood up as the minority of that elected group and defended the majority.

The majority of the people of Texas did not want, care, or believe in what the governing body was trying to pass. And that is something that is happening at such an alarming rate throughout our government.

The majority of our current government is anti-democratic.

 

[EQnoble]

So I fail to understand this...is this really about abortion?

 

[SneakyDave]

Our current government is anti-democratic.

But you live in the UK right?

 

[Adam Howard]

So I fail to understand this...is this really about abortion?

I think it's a little bigger then that.... The point being was the majority of the people didn't want this bill. But despite what the people wanted, officials were going to do what they wanted.

 

[EQnoble]

What I am saying is this...

What part of the ideals of America allows for religious views of one group to dictate what another of a different belief can do, because let's face it, the arguments surrounding abortion are purely religious regardless what anyone tries to say they are. We are not talking about allowing crimes to be committed against others, we are talking about letting people who can't afford a child a good life to not put them through that pain.

I mean half of the people against abortion are the same cock-eyed people who complain about people popping out kids and the state paying for them...how come you don't see them willing to anti up the cost of raising these children that are not allowed to be aborted?

I also find it funny that anti abortion people stop caring about the child after it is born...how many of those people crazed and running up on abortion clinics do you see helping out the aborted child after birth...ohh that's right they expect that the same god that gave the child life to pay it's bills too...news flash...if a god does exist...he doesn't use visa or mastercard.

Best said in the words of the great...

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

chickens are decent people...

 

[Jeremy]

Actually the majority of anti-abortion arguments that I've heard around me relate to when people believe life begins and that abortion is killing a helpless life. Some believe life begins at birth, others conception, others still when the heart starts to beat.

It's all relative to what someone believes in. On that note, I am anti-abortion because there are plenty of woman out there who want children but can't have them (as well as other non-traditional couples) that could adopt a child. However, I would never vote for an anti-abortion bill because that violates free will and a woman's choice.

And to further that, I have a firm belief that the father of the child should have to be told of the pregnancy and sign off on an abortion. Many will say that it's thw woman who has to carry that child to term, but it's still the father's offspring and he should have some say in the matter (ie, he'd become a single father).

 

[EQnoble]

Actually the majority of anti-abortion arguments that I've heard around me relate to when people believe life begins and that abortion is killing a helpless life. Some believe life begins at birth, others conception, others still when the heart starts to beat.

It's all relative to what someone believes in. On that note, I am anti-abortion because there are plenty of woman out there who want children but can't have them (as well as other non-traditional couples) that could adopt a child. However, I would never vote for an anti-abortion bill because that violates free will and a woman's choice.

And to further that, I have a firm belief that the father of the child should have to be told of the pregnancy and sign off on an abortion. Many will say that it's thw woman who has to carry that child to term, but it's still the father's offspring and he should have some say in the matter (ie, he'd become a single father).

So by that respect anyone who throws away good food should be jailed because there are people out there who can't afford a meal and it is spiteful to them.

Non traditional couples made a choice knowing the can't have children...why should that choice effect those that are in relationships in which they can produce offspring?

Also pregnancy takes a toll on a woman's body...it is NOBODYS right but her own to choose if she is going to bear a child and change the way she lives for 9 months. If you don't believe that you should examine history where men chose woman based on their ability to survive child birth. To think that a mans scrawl on a piece of paper is what can free a woman from 9 months of torture (forcing a change to someones body is mentally demoralizing and can ruin someone for the rest of their life)

And if you actually stop and think of it beyond the world of fantasy land, you would realize that if you force a woman to carry a child that she doesn't want all she has to do is drink everyday and smoke and do drugs and that child is going to have a painful and horrible life and no amount of signatures or paperwork can stop that and hell hath a woman scorn.

Would I like to have a say in what happens with my seed..sure...but when you plant a seed in land that is not your own...you can't expect to tend or control the crop...that is reality. Until that crop is freed from the soil in which it grew and brought to market...it is not your child.




You do not have life until you can breathe air yourself.

Is a select part of a program considered a program by itself even if it is dependent on the wrapper around it or is it just code that makes up one program?

If a pregnant woman gets punched in the stomach...does the attacker get charged with 2 counts of assault or 1?
Does he get charged with risk of injury to a minor.

Are unborn children counted in the census?

Does a child born to parents who didn't want them have a good chance at a good life?

Is there previous arrangements for want to be parents to adopt every child born to parents who don't want them?

 

[TPerry]

The majority of the people of Texas did not want, care, or believe in what the governing body was trying to pass. And that is something that is happening at such an alarming rate throughout our government.

Uh... the only "majority" may be in the Austin area (jokingly referred to as little San Francisco). Most of them are California throw-offs.
You have to realize, there is a LARGE conservative base in Texas (with the exception of some of the major metro areas (Dallas/Ft. Worth, Austin & Houston) which tend to lean liberal) As large as Texas is, even those metro areas are out-gunned by the rural areas.
All the governor has to do is call a second special session (which he has done) and her "filibuster" will be toast. 11 hours (or even 16) won't be enough due to the rules she would have to filibuster under as I seriously doubt she could go the entire special session.
And no, Rick Good Hair isn't that popular now. I seriously doubt he'll get re-elected as governor - but it won't be because of this.

 

[Paul B]

This is a highly contentious issue and threads of this nature usually end up one way.

As per the forum rules, I will close this before it gets to that point.