|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Jun 26, 2013 10:32:27 GMT -5
Hooray for women saving women's rights.
|
|
PenguinDeluxe
Main Eventer
20 Refs and Counting
Joined on: Dec 19, 2006 21:22:54 GMT -5
Posts: 4,932
|
Post by PenguinDeluxe on Jun 26, 2013 10:34:55 GMT -5
Hooray for people hurting human rights!
|
|
|
Post by Tye Hyll on Jun 26, 2013 11:03:49 GMT -5
Its a good day for freedom.
|
|
|
Post by ahunter8056 on Jun 26, 2013 13:28:40 GMT -5
A shame. Abortion should be illegal in all countries.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jun 26, 2013 13:36:35 GMT -5
I always laugh about the "women's rights" thing.
By the way, I am not inherently "pro-life."
But to say that someone has the RIGHT to kill another person is pretty crazy.
|
|
|
Post by "The Visionary" Eldniw on Jun 26, 2013 14:02:32 GMT -5
The f*cked up thing is that Texas GOP lawmakers tried to alter the timestamp to make it appear as though they got the vote in before midnight.
|
|
|
Post by Tye Hyll on Jun 26, 2013 14:05:02 GMT -5
I mean if the parent doesnt want the kid then they arent going to have such a great life to begin with. Its crazy how many bad parents and unwanted children there are. I also dont believe it should be completely up to the female but the male as well.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Jun 26, 2013 15:25:55 GMT -5
Whether you love or hate the right to an abortion, I think we can all agree that filibusters are stupid and should be modified/done away with.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jun 26, 2013 15:27:02 GMT -5
Whether you love or hate the right to an abortion, I think we can all agree that filibusters are stupid and should be modified/done away with. I like filibusters. They're rare. It's like the shooting star of politics.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jun 26, 2013 15:29:59 GMT -5
Whether you love or hate the right to an abortion, I think we can all agree that filibusters are stupid and should be modified/done away with. If this filibuster didn't happen then the abortion ban would have passed. I like the filibuster if it disrupts government doing anything harmful.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Jun 26, 2013 15:30:02 GMT -5
I always laugh about the "women's rights" thing. By the way, I am not inherently "pro-life." But to say that someone has the RIGHT to kill another person is pretty crazy. I'm not sure I'd call the foetus a person. I think medics vary on when it can be defined as a living person, and I'd personally say that women should have the right to an abortion within the current timeframe that is available to them. Whether you love or hate the right to an abortion, I think we can all agree that filibusters are stupid and should be modified/done away with. I like filibusters. They're rare. It's like the shooting star of politics. Really? I think they're used far too often. I see them used a lot in Britain, and a fair amount in the USA too. I think its a way for a vocal minority to defeat a silent majority, and all sides are guilty of using it when they shouldn't have.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jun 26, 2013 15:31:09 GMT -5
and a fair amount in the USA too. I think its a way for a vocal minority to defeat a silent majority, and all sides are guilty of using it when they shouldn't have. Actual filibusters are rare. The silent holds Senators put on bills are completely different.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Jun 26, 2013 15:31:49 GMT -5
Whether you love or hate the right to an abortion, I think we can all agree that filibusters are stupid and should be modified/done away with. If this filibuster didn't happen then the abortion ban would have passed. I like the filibuster if it disrupts government doing anything harmful. See, I'm glad this law hasn't passed. I think the Democrats were in the right, but I think that the filibuster is overused and normally used in silly ways that shouldn't be allowed. I like that the law was stopped, but dislike the methods used.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Jun 26, 2013 15:33:29 GMT -5
and a fair amount in the USA too. I think its a way for a vocal minority to defeat a silent majority, and all sides are guilty of using it when they shouldn't have. Actual filibusters are rare. The silent holds Senators put on bills are completely different. Huh, I was always taught in my US politics class that filibusters were common, and that it had been changed in recent years so that you didn't even have to make a speech. Perhaps the silent holds you're talking about is what my teacher was referring to. Nonetheless, I think that the principle is the same, whether its a filibuster or a silent hold.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jun 26, 2013 15:38:27 GMT -5
Actual filibusters are rare. The silent holds Senators put on bills are completely different. Huh, I was always taught in my US politics class that filibusters were common, and that it had been changed in recent years so that you didn't even have to make a speech. Perhaps the silent holds you're talking about is what my teacher was referring to. Nonetheless, I think that the principle is the same, whether its a filibuster or a silent hold. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_holdI'd be happy if they did away with secret holds. If a Senator wants to stop legislation then they should go public with it. If a Senator wants to stop legislation they should have to filibuster. They should have to go before the Senate and stand and talk for hours on end.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Jun 26, 2013 15:41:33 GMT -5
Huh, I was always taught in my US politics class that filibusters were common, and that it had been changed in recent years so that you didn't even have to make a speech. Perhaps the silent holds you're talking about is what my teacher was referring to. Nonetheless, I think that the principle is the same, whether its a filibuster or a silent hold. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_holdI'd be happy if they did away with secret holds. If a Senator wants to stop legislation then they should go public with it. If a Senator wants to stop legislation they should have to filibuster. They should have to go before the Senate and stand and talk for hours on end. I'd agree with that if it weren't for the fact that I think that senators likely would be willing to do all that speaking, on both sides, meaning that Congress would be equally gridlocked but just with more effort. If it turned out that senators weren't willing to do these speeches, then I would be happy for filibusters to stay for rare occasions (as long as they can be overruled for something huge; I seem to remember the record filibuster was 100+ hours on a major piece of race legislation in the 60s, and it still didn't work).
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jun 26, 2013 15:43:22 GMT -5
I'm not sure I'd call the foetus a person. I think medics vary on when it can be defined as a living person Well that's the debate, isn't it? When the left talks about "women's rights," they're trying to shine up a turd while simultaneously lashing the right for "hating women" (that's the message). The right isn't saying that women shouldn't have rights. They're saying that they believe life begins at conception (and most scientists agree), so the fetus should have the right to not be killed. It's not that they're "anti-women's rights." They're pro-fetus rights. It's insane that the left tries to sell it this way. I'd personally say that women should have the right to an abortion within the current timeframe that is available to them. Who defines that timeframe? What qualities does a fetus have to have in order for you to consider it a "living being?" If a mother is two months pregnant and she gets stabbed in the stomach, the fetus dies and she survives; is the person who stabbed her charged with attempted murder or with attempted murder AND murder? Does it have to be BORN in order to be a person? Can a mother have an abortion the day before she's set to give birth, or is it a baby then? Then once you answer that, you do know that all babies develop at different rates, correct? I developed at a different rate than my sister, at a different rate than you and at a different rate than everyone else. There is no timeframe that correctly predicts the physical development of every fetus. Any "first trimester" or "second trimester" laws are completely arbitrary and have nothing to do with science. By the way, again, I want to re-iterate that I am not necessarily "pro-life." I believe that the abortion issue is the hardest one for a liberty-minded person like myself to answer. On one hand, I do not want innocent fetuses dying. On the other hand, I do not want to force a pregnant to live a certain lifestyle. Really? I think they're used far too often. I see them used a lot in Britain, and a fair amount in the USA too. I think its a way for a vocal minority to defeat a silent majority, and all sides are guilty of using it when they shouldn't have. Rand Paul filibustered earlier this year in order to expose President Obama's administration's threats against US citizens with drones. It got national coverage, just as last night's filibuster did...but those are the only two (major?) filibusters I can remember in recent history.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jun 26, 2013 15:50:02 GMT -5
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_holdI'd be happy if they did away with secret holds. If a Senator wants to stop legislation then they should go public with it. If a Senator wants to stop legislation they should have to filibuster. They should have to go before the Senate and stand and talk for hours on end. I'd agree with that if it weren't for the fact that I think that senators likely would be willing to do all that speaking, on both sides, meaning that Congress would be equally gridlocked but just with more effort. If it turned out that senators weren't willing to do these speeches, then I would be happy for filibusters to stay for rare occasions (as long as they can be overruled for something huge; I seem to remember the record filibuster was 100+ hours on a major piece of race legislation in the 60s, and it still didn't work). The record is held by Strom Thurmond and he did it for over 24 hours over the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Senators won't be likely to do a long filibuster today. They have better things to do like meet with lobbyists and get handed sacks full of cash.
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Jun 26, 2013 16:14:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by JC Motors on Jun 26, 2013 18:38:54 GMT -5
A shame. Abortion should be illegal in all countries. I agree
|
|