this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2023

0 points (NaN% liked)

politics

18898 readers

3016 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Texas Supreme Court Rules Against Pregnant Woman Seeking Emergency Abortion (www.rollingstone.com)

submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The Texas Supreme Court ruled against Kate Cox, the pregnant mother who sought permission to obtain an emergency abortion, on Monday.

“These laws reflect the policy choice that the Legislature has made, and the courts must respect that choice,” the court’s seven-page ruling read. The court found that Cox’s doctor, Dr. Damla Karsan, had “asked a court to pre-authorize the abortion yet she could not, or at least did not, attest to the court that Ms. Cox’s condition poses the risks the exception requires.”

Cox, who is 20 weeks pregnant and a mother of two, had filed a lawsuit against Texas over its restrictive abortion bans. Her fetus was found to have a fatal condition known as Trisomy 18. The baby has no chance of survival, but under state law, there are only two options available to Cox: a vaginal delivery, or a C-section. Either option would risk her life or her ability to have children in the future.

Earlier on Monday, Cox’s lawyers said she was forced to flee the state to get medical care.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If you're voting for Republicans, you're clearly OK with all of this, regardless of what you call yourself.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (2 children)

And if you vote Democrat, you're clearly OK with all they do, regardless of what you call yourself.

How's that suit you? You are why we can't have a civil discussion in this country. You emotional little bitches stomp all political discourse. You are hurting our country. Video may be new to many of you, but it's Jon Stewart at his finest. That one got the show cancelled, because it was too fucking embarrassing for both sides. And if you liked that, you'll love this.

But you can't see that, can you? Because you're right and they're wrong. They have no right to speak. I mean, it's plain as day, objectively true, you're right.

I'm about to work on an old shotgun. Cool experiment that I...

"School children killing scum!"

I also vote straight D.

"Baby killing vermin!"

See how that works?

And you wonder how fascists like Trump and Musk find a populist voice. You have no idea where their supporters come from. What a mystery.

Here's the part where I "get schooled" on the paradox of intolerance. Way ahead of ya kid, wasn't born yesterday.

And if I could be more condescending, I would be.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago

I'd ask if you vote Republican but your Temper Tantrum over your Parties own policies already answered it!

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Holy logical fallacies, Batman!

You've got a bunch of strawmen, you've got the hasty generalization fallacy, the slothful induction fallacy, you've of course got plenty ad hominems, a bunch of strawman combos such as a strawman-slippery slope combo or two, a no true Scotsman strawman and a strawman bandwagon fallacy and you've probably got one or two I missed as well.

In conclusion: you're an idiot, arguing in bad faith, or an idiot arguing in bad faith. I'd stake money on it being the latter.