Forum: Internet Links
Topic: Texas Filibuster
started by: Leisher

Posted by Leisher on Jun. 26 2013,08:04
< Blocks a new anti-abortion law. >

This was big shit on Twitter last night as people were following it live.

Abortion isn't a hot button issue for me, unless you want to start talking about how the father has zero rights, and how NOBODY talks about that.

That being said, if the reports I'm seeing are true, and this really isn't something the majority of Texans wanted, and I have to believe they didn't, then good for this woman, and good for the people who protested, and good for this country. Nobody can argue that our elected officials ignoring the people they represent isn't a huge problem, and this seems to be a case of the people fighting back.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 26 2013,08:23
QUOTE
Unlike during famous filibusters in Washington, D.C., when senators talked about anything that came to mind to fill the time, Davis was required to speak nonstop and on topic without sitting down or even leaning on her desk for support.

Ah, filibusters, the last refuge of the damned.  Everyone should have a paintball gun under their chair.  After a speaker gets shot five times, he has to stop.  He can take cover behind the podium, but the mic is fixed to the top.

QUOTE
The measure would have banned abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy and would have required all clinics to be graded as surgical centers, with all doctors required to have admitting privileges at hospitals. It's estimated that nearly all of the state's clinics wouldn't have been able to meet the new standards.

The first item, eh, I'm not going to dwell on.  If you wait more than five months to figure that shit out, you have other problems.  The other two seem excessive.  I'm curious what their reasons are for such standards.

As usual, our illustrious prez offers his bipartisan view of things, bridging political chasms in order to see the democratic process fulfilled.
QUOTE
In a show of support for Davis, President Barack Obama tweeted Tuesday night: "Something special is happening in Austin tonight. #StandWithWendy"

See?  Totally not divisive.

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 26 2013,08:33
My biggest issue with the abortion.... issue.... is that the anti people are fighting because they truly believe children are being murdered. The pro people are passionate because, essentially, they want another birth control option for irressponsible behavior, in spite of the fact it could possibly be murdering children, AND they are smug as hell about it, claiming some superior understanding of the issue. I want to oppose abortion just to oppose people like that.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 26 2013,09:04
Medical science can't even agree on a proper definition of death.  Figuring out when a group of cells legally stops being that and starts getting lawful protection is unlikely to get resolved any time soon.  At that point, they're just going on their belief, so I'll sidestep the whole "is it murder or not" issue.

I'm going to assume that people will engage in irresponsible behaviour and continue to have unplanned pregnancies.  If so...

1) Making abortion illegal is not going to take away the service.  It will go underground and the quality will decrease.
2) If people can't get others to perform the service for them, they may try even worse ideas like doing it themselves.
3) Even if you make the argument that you can always give the child up for adoption, the mother still has to carry the child to term.

I do not look forward to the problems those three things would cause.  If the pro-lifers want to make sure that their relatives, friends, acquaintances, etc., never see the inside of a Planned Parenthood, then fine.  They can orchestrate their lives so it never happens.

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 26 2013,10:50
You cant just ignore the 'when does life begin' issue since for one side of.the debate that is 90% of the argument. Of course the decision is easy when you remove the possibility you are killing children.  There's nothing else to be passionate about at that point.

I have heard some very unreligious people state they are anti-abortion just to err on the side of caution.  I've seen some very supposedly open minded people state ' life begins HERE and abortion is fine before that and you are stupid if you disagree.'



Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 26 2013,11:12
I'd like to know where "here" is.  Until then, I'm quite willing to say I've got no decent response, and I'm not going to prohibit any actions based on other people's feelings, instincts, or hand-wavey "they're alive" arguments.  Tell me exactly what "alive" means.

The ability to produce a heartbeat?  Nope, people have their heart stopped during surgery all the time.
The ability to produce brainwaves?  Nope, people have gone brain dead and come back.
The ability to survive independently?  Nope, infants are pretty much helpless without their parents, even after they're out of the womb.
Once they reach a certain mass, weight, age, or some other arbitrary physical measurement?

Why is it erring on the side of caution to keep the children around?  Would the world be better off if Chuckie Manson had been aborted?

And if we'd like to talk about being cautious, then we may as well take the death penalty off the books, because hey, judges make mistakes, cops make mistakes, DNA/fingerprint samples gets switched, witnesses recant, etc.  Don't want to put a dude to death then find out 20 years later it was just a clerical error.  Because that'd be murder.

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 26 2013,15:06
I absolutely agree the death penalty should be abolished, for that exact reason. I bet waaaaay more innocents are put to death than we think. This is the AMERICAN government we are talking about, here.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 26 2013,16:14
Difference is that if you aren't sure about killing someone, you can just leave the status quo as is and they are still alive, granted sitting in jail sucks.  

Pregnancies are time sensitive.  The status quo before was no kid.  Abortion is maintaining the status quo as much as possible.  If you decide later you want a kid, you can have another (unless you go to some incompetent doctor that fucks things up).  If some dumb-ass kids get pregnant, I'm not going to make them go through bringing a child to term just because they're part of a species where physical maturity outstrips emotional maturity (which was a useful evolutionary trait back in the day, but is nothing but problematic in modern society) for the first part of life.  It makes life insanely complicated and it sure as hell isn't something you can undo once done.  Rather than giving them only two options, raising the kid or putting it up for adoption, I'd prefer to give them the third option of not having it.  Humans have had no problems doing that for a < long, long > time.  Technology and science are how we cheat.

What are you going to teach them by making them have the kid?  There's a difference between learning a lesson and completely bulldozing someone's life to make sure your conscience or practical belief in human potential sleeps easier at night.  When you don't want a kid, being forced to birth one, let alone raise one, is a mindfuck.

Finally, if I look around in nature, one thing I can deduce is that it certainly doesn't hold life as sacred because there sure as shit is a lot of killing and maiming going on.

Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 26 2013,16:26
I find abortion distasteful, but I'm with Malcolm here.  Until there is a reasonably strong definition of just when a life "begins" then limiting these procedures by law can cause far more harm than good.  Personally I'd be tempted to set the limit to around the time they start to talk in complete sentences, but them I'm a monster and don't have children of my own.

QUOTE
The other two seem excessive.  I'm curious what their reasons are for such standards.

I am almost certain their standards were just quoted right above: "It's estimated that nearly all of the state's clinics wouldn't have been able to meet the new standards."  If you can't beat the issue directly, set the qualifications so that no one can meet them and you can win that way.  It's the same thinking that led to the IRS being the ones to finally take down Capone.

As to the filibuster, that I like.  We do it right down here in Texas; you have to talk - and on topic as well - in order to hold a filibuster.  None of this mere threat of a filibuster being held to be the same as a filibuster shit that happens at the federal level.  Although I do think we're a little too strict; you should be able to get support from other members of the legislative body as you go.  A good filibuster should be allowed to be a team effort, so that the more agreement there is with it the better it goes.  That's within the spirit of democracy, IMO.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 26 2013,16:50
QUOTE
The English term "filibuster" derives from the Spanish filibustero, itself deriving originally from the Dutch vrijbuiter, "privateer, pirate, robber" (also the root of English "freebooter").

Sounds about right.  How is delaying a vote in the spirit of democracy?  It traces back to a weird-ass Roman senatorial procedure.

Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 26 2013,17:02
When the legislative body refuses to follow the will of the people, a filibuster is a good way to deal with that.  

It can also be abused to thwart the will of the people, sure, but that happens less often because usually it results in legislation NOT being passed, and in the vast majority of cases legislation not being passed is better for the people than legislation being passed.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 26 2013,21:01
QUOTE
When the legislative body refuses to follow the will of the people, a filibuster is a good way to deal with that.

The people should be dealing with that shit on their own.  The legislators are the ones doing the filibustering, and the ones not listening to their voters.  You're banking on the righteous few holding out against a super majority?  I still don't like those odds.

Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 26 2013,21:10
Well in an ideal world it wouldn't be necessary because politicians would be honest, voters would be well-informed and everyone what wanted a pony could have one.  Until we live in that world, I'm happy there's a way for the righteous few to slow down the greedy bastards from time to time.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 26 2013,21:15
I'm unconvinced one can be elected to any office of significance and remain truly righteous.  At least in this country nowadays.


Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 27 2013,12:00
< Captain Dumb-ass > offers his opinion.
QUOTE
The Texas governor, Rick Perry, turned on the newest hero of the pro-choice movement on Thursday, accusing state senator Wendy Davis of failing to "learn from her mistakes" as a single teenage mother.

Apparently, Rick Perry didn't learn from his mistakes during the prez primaries where I'm pretty sure most voters viewed him as a "fanatic religious ass hat."

QUOTE
"What we witnessed Tuesday was nothing more than the hijacking of the democratic process," Perry said.
...
"Yes, many children are born in difficult circumstances, but there is no such thing as an unwanted life, because no life, no life is trivial in God's eyes," said Perry.

Because god trumps the democratic process.

Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 10 2013,10:39
< Bill passes the House >.
QUOTE
“On to the Senate — Praise God!” tweeted state Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford.

That is fucking frightening.  Yes Johnny, god's got nothing better to do than lobby for you.  That's so close to theocracy it makes me shudder.

QUOTE
There now are about three dozen licensed health centers in Texas where women may get abortions. If this measure becomes law, all but a few will likely close, leaving facilities only in Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston and San Antonio, estimates say.

Have fun dealing with the upswing in illegal abortions, jack-asses.



Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 10 2013,11:01
Rep. Jonathan Strickland makes me want to approve in 120th trimester abortions.  At least in his particular case.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 10 2013,11:26

(TPRJones @ Jul. 10 2013,13:01)
QUOTE
Rep. Jonathan Strickland makes me want to approve in 120th trimester abortions.  At least in his particular case.

Maybe he'll be roommates with the Ayatollah in hell.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 12 2013,10:32
Let's do it < one more time >.
Powered by Ikonboard 3.1.5 © 2006 Ikonboard