Roe v Wade is on deck

[Trausti]

Ancient Carthaginians really did sacrifice their children

Children – both male and female, and mostly a few weeks old – were sacrificed by the Carthaginians at locations known as tophets. The practice was also carried out by their neighbours at other Phoenician colonies in Sicily, Sardinia and Malta. Dedications from the children's parents to the gods are inscribed on slabs of stone above their cremated remains, ending with the explanation that the god or gods concerned had 'heard my voice and blessed me'.

Dr Quinn said: 'People have tried to argue that these archaeological sites are cemeteries for children who were stillborn or died young, but quite apart from the fact that a weak, sick or dead child would be a pretty poor offering to a god, and that animal remains are found in the same sites treated in exactly the same way, it's hard to imagine how the death of a child could count as the answer to a prayer.

'It's very difficult for us to recapture people's motivations for carrying out this practice or why parents would agree to it, but it's worth trying.

 

[Trausti]

Pendulum swings are interesting. Now Democrats want to persuade people to avoid promiscuity and extramarital sex. What a world.

Illinois bill would allow women to sue men over unwanted pregnancies

The Illinois bill would do just the opposite. If passed, it would allow anyone to sue another person for unintended pregnancy, regardless of circumstance or consent.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Eliminate rape?

Like the Islamist nations that have a simple solution: An accusation of rape is taken as proof of sex outside marriage. If the accusation isn't upheld (and the requirements for proving rape are almost never possible to meet) she's convicted of sex outside marriage.

Reminds me of Ahmadinejad saying there were no gays in Iran.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Pendulum swings are interesting. Now Democrats want to persuade people to avoid promiscuity and extramarital sex. What a world.

Illinois bill would allow women to sue men over unwanted pregnancies

The Illinois bill would do just the opposite. If passed, it would allow anyone to sue another person for unintended pregnancy, regardless of circumstance or consent.

To be fair, this bill will likely never get passed and was introduced primarily to make a political comment on the Texas abortion law, which did get passed and signed

 

[Toni]

Pendulum swings are interesting. Now Democrats want to persuade people to avoid promiscuity and extramarital sex. What a world.

Illinois bill would allow women to sue men over unwanted pregnancies

The Illinois bill would do just the opposite. If passed, it would allow anyone to sue another person for unintended pregnancy, regardless of circumstance or consent.

You think the only unintended or unwanted pregnancy occurs outside of marriage or commited relationship?

 

[TomC]

Pendulum swings are interesting. Now Democrats want to persuade people to avoid promiscuity and extramarital sex. What a world.

Illinois bill would allow women to sue men over unwanted pregnancies

The Illinois bill would do just the opposite. If passed, it would allow anyone to sue another person for unintended pregnancy, regardless of circumstance or consent.

How is that different from current laws?
At the moment, a female can decide "It's a clump of cells. Kill it." with no regard for the father's opinion. She can also decide "It's a blessed gift from God. You owe me 18 years of child support." with no regard for the father's opinion.

Is the law intended to sue for the costs of the abortion?
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Pendulum swings are interesting. Now Democrats want to persuade people to avoid promiscuity and extramarital sex. What a world.

Illinois bill would allow women to sue men over unwanted pregnancies

The Illinois bill would do just the opposite. If passed, it would allow anyone to sue another person for unintended pregnancy, regardless of circumstance or consent.

To be fair, this bill will likely never get passed and was introduced primarily to make a political comment on the Texas abortion law, which did get passed and signed

Too bad Trausti wasn't able to read between the lines... or well... what was made pretty clear up front.

 

[Bomb#20]

The Illinois bill would do just the opposite. If passed, it would allow anyone to sue another person for unintended pregnancy, regardless of circumstance or consent.

How is that different from current laws?

Standing.

At the moment, a female can decide "It's a clump of cells. Kill it." with no regard for the father's opinion. She can also decide "It's a blessed gift from God. You owe me 18 years of child support." with no regard for the father's opinion.

If the law is passed then any random third party can sue the father for causing the female's unwanted pregnancy, the same way any random third party can sue those who help a Texan get an abortion. 'It is built exactly off of the Texas law," Cassidy said.'

Is the law intended to sue for the costs of the abortion?
Tom

I doubt the bill is intended to do anything but make people think; but if we take it literally, it's supposed to be used to sue to cover the costs of other people's abortions. 'If the case is won, half of the money would go to a public state fund to pay for abortions for residents of states like Texas.' What the plaintiff does with his own half of the $10,000 is his business.

 

[TomC]

Standing.

At the moment, a female can decide "It's a clump of cells. Kill it." with no regard for the father's opinion. She can also decide "It's a blessed gift from God. You owe me 18 years of child support." with no regard for the father's opinion.

If the law is passed then any random third party can sue the father for causing the female's unwanted pregnancy, the same way any random third party can sue those who help a Texan get an abortion. 'It is built exactly off of the Texas law," Cassidy said.'

Is the law intended to sue for the costs of the abortion?
Tom

I doubt the bill is intended to do anything but make people think; but if we take it literally, it's supposed to be used to sue to cover the costs of other people's abortions. 'If the case is won, half of the money would go to a public state fund to pay for abortions for residents of states like Texas.' What the plaintiff does with his own half of the $10,000 is his business.

Oh, I see.
Tom

 

[lpetrich]

Ancient Carthaginians really did sacrifice their children

Boo hoo hoo hoo hoo, Trausti


I think it significant that most of the politicians on the forefront of defending abortion are female. Those mentioned in this thread: Reps. AOC, Ayanna Pressley, Kat Cammack, Judy Chu, Pramila Jayapal, Barbara Lee, Jan Schakowsky, Diana DeGette, Carolyn Maloney, Sens. Tammy Duckworth, Patty Murray, Mazie Hirono. The only male one is Sen. Richard Blumenthal.

That is not to say that there are no female opponents of abortion. There are some, and they have arguments like abortion is a rejection of motherhood, alongside the obvious one, that abortion is baby killing.


Manchin says reconciliation bill must include controversial Hyde Amendment | TheHill

“Yeah, we’re not taking the Hyde Amendment off. Hyde’s going to be on,” Manchin told National Review when asked about a proposed Medicaid-like program in the reconciliation bill.

“It has to be. It has to be. That’s dead on arrival if that’s gone,” Manchin, who has described himself as "pro-life, and proud of it," added.

then
The Hill on Twitter: "Manchin says reconciliation bill must include controversial Hyde Amendment (links)" / Twitter

Rashida Tlaib on Twitter: "This.

This on a day where @RepJayapal @CoriBush + @RepBarbaraLee are courageously testifying before @OversightDems about their lived experiences. This, during a time when we are fighting back against an attack on women's right to health care and choice." / Twitter

Congresswoman Marie Newman on Twitter: "Today, the House will pass the Women's Health Protection Act to ensure that EVERY woman in EVERY state has access to safe and legal abortion services.
#WHPA" / Twitter
She primaried an anti-abortion Democrat, Dan Lipinski, in 2020, after almost doing so in 2018.

Jessica Cisneros is hoping to do that with the remaining one in the House, Henry Cuellar.

Though Rashida Tlaib and Marie Newman have been less prominent defenders of abortion, they seem firm and steadfast.


Kyrsten Sinema's position is unclear. She has been firmly on the pro-choice side in the past, but will she sound like some weaselly centrist on that also?

 

[Shadowy Man]

To be fair, this bill will likely never get passed and was introduced primarily to make a political comment on the Texas abortion law, which did get passed and signed

Too bad Trausti wasn't able to read between the lines... or well... what was made pretty clear up front.

To be fair to Trausti, that information wasn't in the headline.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The Hyde Amendment?! Jebus, Manchin!

Can't we just cut the damn bill to $2ish trillion and be happy? It is like we've got the absolute worst negotiators ever playing for the Democrats. The Progs are acting like we've got a 75% of the seats in the House and Senate. We've got a pair of US Senators that are right-leaning moderates and really not that good at communication.

I was really hoping that under the surface there was an understanding between Pelosi, Biden, Manchin, Sinema, and the leader of the Progs. But it doesn't seem like that at all. Sen. Sinema seems to be in her own world, like nothing is going on and every once in a while she'll peek out and say something. This'll look like an utter failure if the progs bury the Infrastructure bill because they can't get a very ambitious bill passed with a tie breaking majority in the Senate.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Pendulum swings are interesting. Now Democrats want to persuade people to avoid promiscuity and extramarital sex. What a world.

Illinois bill would allow women to sue men over unwanted pregnancies

The Illinois bill would do just the opposite. If passed, it would allow anyone to sue another person for unintended pregnancy, regardless of circumstance or consent.

Do you realize this is basically just SB-8 turned on it's head? They don't really mean for such lawsuits to happen, they're just causing legal problems for the conservatives. Letting SB-8 stand means letting this stand.

 

[TomC]

Pendulum swings are interesting. Now Democrats want to persuade people to avoid promiscuity and extramarital sex. What a world.

Illinois bill would allow women to sue men over unwanted pregnancies

The Illinois bill would do just the opposite. If passed, it would allow anyone to sue another person for unintended pregnancy, regardless of circumstance or consent.

Do you realize this is basically just SB-8 turned on it's head? They don't really mean for such lawsuits to happen, they're just causing legal problems for the conservatives. Letting SB-8 stand means letting this stand.

Heh...
So the parents of a pregnant teenage girl could sue the parents of the kid who knocked her up? That does sound like a game changer from the parental supervision stand point.
Tom

 

[Trausti]

Ancient Carthaginians really did sacrifice their children

Boo hoo hoo hoo hoo, Trausti

For 2,000 years it was considered slander to say a civilization killed its own children. So there’s that.

 

[Trausti]

Pendulum swings are interesting. Now Democrats want to persuade people to avoid promiscuity and extramarital sex. What a world.

Illinois bill would allow women to sue men over unwanted pregnancies

The Illinois bill would do just the opposite. If passed, it would allow anyone to sue another person for unintended pregnancy, regardless of circumstance or consent.

Do you realize this is basically just SB-8 turned on it's head? They don't really mean for such lawsuits to happen, they're just causing legal problems for the conservatives. Letting SB-8 stand means letting this stand.

How would it cause legal problems for conservatives? Wouldn’t they welcome a decrease in unplanned pregnancies, regardless of the motivation?

 

[Shadowy Man]

Do you realize this is basically just SB-8 turned on it's head? They don't really mean for such lawsuits to happen, they're just causing legal problems for the conservatives. Letting SB-8 stand means letting this stand.

How would it cause legal problems for conservatives? Wouldn’t they welcome a decrease in unplanned pregnancies, regardless of the motivation?

If conservatives actually cared about decreasing unplanned pregnancies they would be supporting the various efforts that have been proven to decrease unplanned pregnancies.

 

[lpetrich]

Pendulum swings are interesting. Now Democrats want to persuade people to avoid promiscuity and extramarital sex. What a world.

Illinois bill would allow women to sue men over unwanted pregnancies

The Illinois bill would do just the opposite. If passed, it would allow anyone to sue another person for unintended pregnancy, regardless of circumstance or consent.

There is a difference between sex and reproduction, even if some people seem to think that there is no difference.

 

[Gun Nut]

Do you realize this is basically just SB-8 turned on it's head? They don't really mean for such lawsuits to happen, they're just causing legal problems for the conservatives. Letting SB-8 stand means letting this stand.

Heh...
So the parents of a pregnant teenage girl could sue the parents of the kid who knocked her up? That does sound like a game changer from the parental supervision stand point.
Tom

My father, in the 1980's predicted this when he wouldn't let me close the door to my bedroom if i had a girl over. He literally told me he was afraid of HIS liability.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Do you realize this is basically just SB-8 turned on it's head? They don't really mean for such lawsuits to happen, they're just causing legal problems for the conservatives. Letting SB-8 stand means letting this stand.

How would it cause legal problems for conservatives? Wouldn’t they welcome a decrease in unplanned pregnancies, regardless of the motivation?

Conservatives want unplanned pregnancies. Gotta have plenty of lives wrecked to keep people afraid of having sex.