Gun control debate (merged)

#18,426
#18,426
Vol8188 said:
So your only issue is you feel the party has no claim?

Meaning if it were only the father, or the mother if she later had regret, allowed to sue for abortions you’d have no issues with it?

If California only allowed relatives of those killed to sue, would you now support both laws?

Or is that not your real problem with either law?
Click to expand...
Oh and hell no on that. That’s on the mother and she doesn’t get to transfer her choice at a later time.

If the biological father is against the abortion I’d say he has some standing and deserves to be heard. To whom he had standing against is debatable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol and tntar heel
#18,427
#18,427
NorthDallas40 said:
The model of the TX legislation and the follow on CA legislation is they imbue parties with enforcement power and entitle them to damages recovery for things they are not party to and have zero jurisdiction on.

I’m against abortion as convenient birth control and late term abortion pretty much across the board. But the TX approach to solving it is trash. It’s effective right now. But it’s going to get over turned.

I see no merit playing your narrowing game on instances they are a waste of time and in fact don’t even pertain to the TX law. In the cases you present those individuals at least have some attachment to each incident.

For example the Sandy Hook families suing the gun mfgrs. I think they at least can make an argument that they have standing. But to be clear I think their case was crap and ridiculous. Now Bubba that lived three streets over from one of the kids that got killed has zero standing but under this law model would be granted standing. That’s asinine
Click to expand...

Isn’t narrowing important for clarity? Seems like a much more effective form of communication.
 
#18,428
#18,428
NorthDallas40 said:
Oh and hell no on that. That’s on the mother and she doesn’t get to transfer her choice at a later time.

If the biological father is against the abortion I’d say he has some standing abs deserves to be heard
Click to expand...

You don’t believe women in this country have been fed a lie that abortion is an insignificant medical procedure and that they’re just killing some random cells no different than removed a cancer?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol
#18,430
#18,430
Vol8188 said:
You don’t believe women in this country have been fed a lie that abortion is an insignificant medical procedure and that they’re just killing some random cells no different than removed a cancer?
Click to expand...
Lol. I told you what I’m against. I’m not buying into that loaded statement at all. And even if you buy into it the TX law isn’t your answer. You have no standing to seek damages in an abortion in another city to people you’ve never met or will never know. Full stop.
 
#18,431
#18,431
NorthDallas40 said:
Not in the way you attempted it was what I felt. I did give you another reply specific to the mother or father.
Click to expand...

The point of narrowing is addressing the actual issues you have with the legislation. Instead of just saying it’s trash. It also allows us to establish where we disagree.

Honestly idk if we are that far off. I don’t think an unaffected party should be able to sue and I don’t imagine a court will allow such suits to move forward honeslty but we will see.
 
#18,432
#18,432
NorthDallas40 said:
Lol. I told you what I’m against. I’m not buying into that loaded statement at all. And even if you buy into it the TX law isn’t your answer. You have no standing to seek damages in an abortion in another city to people you’ve never met or will never know. Full stop.
Click to expand...

It’s not loaded at all. Either you believe that or you don’t. But if you believe women have been lied too about the significance of importance, then they have obvious grounds to sue the provider. Patient education is a well established role of any medical provider.
 
#18,433
#18,433
Vol8188 said:
The point of narrowing is addressing the actual issues you have with the legislation. Instead of just saying it’s trash. It also allows us to establish where we disagree.

Honestly idk if we are that far off. I don’t think an unaffected party should be able to sue and I don’t imagine a court will allow such suits to move forward honeslty but we will see.
Click to expand...
On your last paragraph I agree with your unaffected party premise however the law is written in such a manner that it does just that. They literally set up an anonymous tip line in TX where people could snitch on others and the people would take the info and investigate. Again that’s asinine.
 
#18,434
#18,434
NorthDallas40 said:
On your last paragraph I agree with your unaffected party premise however the law is written in such a manner that it does just that. They literally set up an anonymous tip line in TX where people could snitch on others and the people would take the info and investigate. Again that’s asinine.
Click to expand...

Would you support the law if it only pertained to those impacted?
 
#18,435
#18,435
Vol8188 said:
It’s not loaded at all. Either you believe that or you don’t. But if you believe women have been lied too about the significance of importance, then they have obvious grounds to sue the provider. Patient education is a well established role of any medical provider.
Click to expand...
You phrased it as a highly loaded statement. No I don’t buy into it as you stated. Yes patient education is a major role especially in a procedure like abortion. That gets back on the ethics of the person educating the patient. And I’d guess those ethics cover a broad spectrum with regards to the practicers.

Now… we are in the gun thread. Not the abortion thread?

No I don’t think we are far off perhaps in personal beliefs. However I will never support legislation modeled after the TX abortion legislation. But that’s a topic for a different thread
 
#18,436
#18,436
Vol8188 said:
Would you support the law if it only pertained to those impacted?
Click to expand...
Would I support legislation which attaches civil damages to a person directly party to the pregnancy? I can see where I might yes. Specifically in the case where the father doesn’t want the abortion to occur. But I don’t see how civil damages would fix that.

Perhaps this should move to a different thread?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol8188
#18,437
#18,437
NorthDallas40 said:
You phrased it as a highly loaded statement. No I don’t buy into it as you stated. Yes patient education is a major role especially in a procedure like abortion. That gets back on the ethics of the person educating the patient. And I’d guess those ethics cover a broad spectrum with regards to the practicers.

Now… we are in the gun thread. Not the abortion thread?

No I don’t think we are far off perhaps in personal beliefs. However I will never support legislation modeled after the TX abortion legislation. But that’s a topic for a different thread
Click to expand...

You brought up abortion in the gun thread, not me.

What that I stated do you not buy into?

Would you support allowing the father to sue in the case of abortion?
 
#18,438
#18,438
Vol8188 said:
You brought up abortion in the gun thread, not me.

What that I stated do you not buy into?

Would you support allowing the father to sue in the case of abortion?
Click to expand...
No I didn’t bring it up. It was brought up by whomever posted the link to the CA proposed legislation modeled after the TX abortion law. You just discounted it out of hand and your basis appeared to be lack of standing by any potential plaintiff. I merely pointed out that’s exactly what the TX legislation was about. It bestows standing on parties who clearly have none. Or tries to.

You implied the CA proposal is absurd. I agree with you it is. In the same manner that the TX legislation it’s modeled after is equally absurd. That’s it in a nutshell.

That does not mean I am pro unrestricted abortion. Just the opposite is the case.
 
#18,440
#18,440
In reference to the other thread, I suppose there is something to be said about a shotgun for home defense...

girls_wguns_c88db395921b24d8a1516c696da_2e9ae275_540.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland, MR_VOL, 85SugarVol and 1 other person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top