They are starting "movement," out of the Theocracy of Texas.

1. Filing a lawsuit is not vigilantism
2. It doesn't take religion to realize that infanticide is evil.

The vigilantism is not in the lawsuit, it's a provision in the Texas law providing for the rewarding of those reporting any who violate the abortion restrictions or others who assist them, even cab drivers.

I'll have to look into the cab drivers thing, but for the rest of it, does that mean it's also terrible vigilantism when schools and local police offices put up rewards for reporting drug use?

The law allows for $10,000 or more awarded for successful lawsuits against anyone providing any sort of assistance.

Though I've not heard of rewards for reporting drug use (around here, anyways), a reward for reporting a crime is different from lawsuits against people not even directly involved in the abortion - itself recognized as a right since 1973 by the US Supreme Court.

I guess that's true. It makes me wonder, though, why abortion was declared as a right because it would be an invasion of privacy if the government knew people murdered their own children, but people can be punished for personal drug use which doesn't have a 100% mortality rate for the person the drugs effect, in some states not having the vaccine (which fits in the same category of past medical procedures), and, also dependent on the state, owning firearms which save many more lives than they end.

If someone killed a grown human in their own house, it was done privately, but it is still wrong. Why is abortion any different?

I believe the federal government needs consistency, and they can only achieve that by recognizing murder of the unborn as a crime and allowing states to punish it, or they can treat every private matter with a blind eye and effectively legalize the rest of murder. I would highly prefer the first one.

Guess it's true? Have to look into it?

I deal in facts, saves me from having others waste my time with silly arguments about how the only thing that rivals their brain hemorrhaging ignorance is the fragility of their utterly worthless egos.

Legally the abortion issue is considered to be one about choice over one's body. From clipping hair and nails to getting flesh cut off during plastic surgery, people have parts of themselves removed all the time.

Children are still considered little more than property of their parents till they're 18. Right to life before birth is not the the only right they are deprived of till the age of 21.

States kill all the time, at least some do with capital puishment, and the federal gov't has killed countless in wars over ship boilers that blew up or aluminum irrigation tubes or Chiquita Bananas (150,000 for those alone), so they're hardly candidates for Life-is-Precious advocates.

I did look into the cab thing, by the way, and I do believe that part of it is wrong. ​I ​said, "I guess that's true," about there not being much of a legal precedent because the government recognizes as a right. The rest of my comment was an explanation of the legal inconsistency of the Rowe vs Wade ruling that calls it a right.

"Legally the abortion issue is considered to be one about choice over one's body. From clipping hair and nails to getting flesh cut off during plastic surgery, people have parts of themselves removed all the time."

Clipping fingernails doesn't kill another human being that is entitled to human rights. Abortion does.

"Children are still considered little more than property of their parents till they're 18. Right to life before birth is not the the only right they are deprived of till the age of 21."

Children and adolescents are deprived some rights on the precedent that they are immature and have undeveloped brains, but not being able to sign a contract or waiver alone is not comparable to a parent being allowed to kill a child. A parent can't kill her child after it is born, so parents having a level of control over their children doesn't hold up as a justification of abortion

"States kill all the time, at least some do with capital puishment, and the federal gov't has killed countless in wars over ship boilers that blew up or aluminum irrigation tubes or Chiquita Bananas (150,000 for those alone), so they're hardly candidates for Life-is-Precious advocates."

States should only kill people who pose a threat to them and their citizens (I disagree with wars over resources too), so unless we pull a minority report to the extreme, determining if a fetus will pose a threat to the life of others later in its life, that is not a strong precedent for abortion, either.

You should look it up then, because your "I sorta looked but am not sure yet" is merely a lame excuse to waste my time.

Also wasting my time, skimming through the rest see claims based on your feels with a dollop of contradictory for added effect. "They have rights unborn, but not quite after, but then again when adult" is pretzelating diversion.

You also seem to not be paying attention to what I said, again arguing simply your feelz, and I get bored with trying to correct [what I hope are just] deliberate distortions and faked assumptions.

None of this was an attempt to waste your time, and I hope you are just saying that as an attempt at a guilt trip and don't believe that excuse, or you're living in delusion. I told you I did look into it, not that I "sort of did." I do believe that cab drivers shouldn't be punished for driving people to get abortions. Their job is to drive people where they want to go, and it's none of their business what someone does once they're there.

"They have rights unborn, but not quite after, but then again when adult"

I never claimed such a thing. I said that children's and adolescents rights restrictions never go as far as losing their right to life, and the same should apply for fetuses.

If you need that drilled further, the preamble to the Declaration of Independence states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." If you want to deny people's right to life at any age, America's founding documents stand against you.

The USA's founding documents stand FOR me, being American n all, although those "men" it refers to were originally only adult monied property owning Protestant males of British, German, or Scandinavian stock.

Ok, let me just get to it: If you can you stop pretending I said something I didn't, your 'argument' looks less ridiculous a lot.

I did misunderstand what you said about cabbies, so my bad, but you have been mischaracterizing what I have said in order to pump your partisan hack narrative and acting like somehow the simple facts I've posted are somehow subject to your verification because your ignorance is just that wonderfully polyurethane coated, so...

From now on, you quote what you plan to distort, or I ignore you.
In fact, skip that that, I grow bored with this nonsense and I'm watching tv.

ciao

Lol more baseless claims about me being the one mischaracterizing arguments lol. You're just pulling back because I caught your trolling ;) idk what you're intentions are, but you actually had me fooled that you believed what you were saying for a while XD. So long!

When ignorance is the selected tint of your glasses and you just realized you were trying to argue against me by agreeing with me like the automated tool you are.

I don't troll people, I get them to troll themselves.

Bet ya delete your comments when nobody's looking,,,

Toodles, and thanks fer playing!

Your sentence structure made it a bit hard to follow lol. Also, why would I delete my comments if I honestly believe every word I said? Those are my beliefs and I'll stand by them. A lot of the political arguments in this world are stupid, but fighting for the life of the unborn is a hill I'm willing to die on.

Glad I could "play along" in your little game

You're not willing to die on any hill for it, as twisting statements and making deliberately erroneous assumptions is hardly a fatal excercise nor a world changing one.

So you deny something is what it is which it specifically is by intent and design, then pull out an excuse/whataboutism to justify it just in case someone points that out?

"I didn't cheat on you honey, but it would be your fault if I did because you don't pay enough attention to me"

Hey, if it's good enough for adultery, it's good enough for murder - 'scuse, deliberately killing - 'scuse, deliberately terminatng the life of another individual because it isn't an adult male of means - the slave owner's legal right.

Semantics, based on terms utilized as you do since the 60s ad 70s.

If someone kills a pregnant women, that's two murder charges, and the second isn't for a "fetus"

The charge is not 1 Murder and 1 Forcible Termination of Pregnancy Without Maternal Consent, it's double HOMICIDE.

So that is a person if and only if the mother says it’s a person?

Can you name one other circumstance in which someone’s personhood is so contingent?

Oh, is this some type of devil's advocate game you're playing or just a troll? 😂😂😂

You see, that's what happens when you're a script reading one dimensional partisan hack stuck in a two dimensional world incapable of thinking for yourself.

I deal facts, not LeftRightLeftRight cheerleader drivel carved for automated simpleton drones.

This site, I swear.

So you believe abortion is murder and that it should be a right at the same time? Got it :)

I wouldn't say you have to be a socialist because you like abortion or anything, and I do believe there is way too much mindless groupthink in democrats repeating meaningless slogans and republicans claiming election fraud. What I've found here, though, is that you've contradicted yourself on a single issue, arguing both sides in incompatible ways. It may not be a troll, but some type of mind game, or possibly arguing against what you believe to get a better understanding of your opposition. I am more inclined to believe it is a troll, though, because of your repeated false accusations about my arguments, that I'm intentionally misrepresenting you or putting words in your mouth. If you are sincere in those, then I'm sorry I'm misunderstanding, but you are not being rational imo and this is a waste of my time.

tl;dr

I can see you can't stop lying for the sake of being a good bot.

If at first you don't suck seed, suck, suck again.

cheers!

That roast is actually kinda funny

Well, almost, anyways.

Blasphemous

The legal definition of vigilantism is: "Taking the law into one's own hands and attempting to effect justice according to one's own understanding of right and wrong." That is exactly what the Texas Anti-Woman's Rights law encourages and enables.

Can you stop lying and twisting words for one moment? Filing a lawsuit is not vigilantism. That’s absurd.

According to the law, it is, regardless of what you want to believe. Most people are confused because their perception of vigilantes is based on old motion pictures, and not legal dictionaries.

Lying scum twist the meaning of words. Such is life.

So, reporting any crime is vigilantism. Got it 👍

I purposely made this meme report the opposite of what is happening. Tesla is moving out of California and into Texas. But, the geniuses that call me an idiot focused on defending the anti-woman law. The joke is on them.

A lawsuit is not “mob justice.” Ever single day, you lunatics get further & further from reality.

And in terms of school board meetings there are very few of those. Certainly not enough to necessitate the FBI intervene.

You know, Alex Jones gets death threats for political reasons. Is the FBI going to intervene to protect him?

Can you stop spewing bullshit for one second?

That the FBI is going to get involved to protect Alex Jones, who I am quite sure has received more death threats than any of these school board members.

By the way, you never gave me a clear answer: Will a black person be punished for being "racist" towards a white person?

The only laws that punish "racism," specifically are "hate crime laws." This takes a primary act, such as assault and adds the mitigating factor that the suspect allegedly committed the crime based on some sort of personal animus toward the victim because that person is a member of a specific group. The First Amendment protects a persons right to harbor any disgusting bias they please. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. ruled many years ago, that right ends at the nose of a victim.

Would a blacks person be fired for being “racist” towards white people, as white people are often fired?

Again, their right to be racist ends at the other person's nose. And, each case is a stand alone event. Not all of the same things are done. Lawyers vary, in terms of knowledge and skill. If a person is fired for breaking a law or regulation that prohibits creating a hostile work environment, that law applies no matter what the person's motivation. If you have been harassed because of your race, by a person of a different race, on the job, file a complaint.

“I actually found a case,”

One case. One case? Wow, well that just disproves everything I said.

One case. Do you have any idea how pathetic and dishonest you sound?

You failed to answer the question.

I actually found a case, Bernadine Stewart versus Rise, Inc. of a White Supervisor reacting to sexual and racial harassment by subordinates. The court found in her favor because her employer did not allow her to take corrective action against a group of Somali immigrant employees who had created a hostile work environment for her. Often, harassers are simply fired and do not appeal. So, there is no legal trail to pursue. This case establishes that the standard for unacceptable behavior and redress is universal.

Can you please point me to a source for information on death threats received by Alex Jones? I have looked and looked and cannot find any reference to these threat and the absence of police action in response to them. Thank you, in advance for your help.

Sure, you first show me the death threats to the school board members. Show me this spate of threats so terrible and pervasive it requires the criminals at the FBI to intervene.

I don't know what you are talking about. When did I mention School Boards?

Not every member of a mob needs to have their hands on the noose. If the mobs opinion, not the rule of law, is the basis for the action it is mob justice.

Hey moron, they passed a law, by the legislature, in a constitutionally-approved manner. That's what rule of law means.

By singling out this one law to be enforced in this method it does not meet the standard of "Rule of Law." In order for that to happen, you would need to enable the mob to enforce all laws in this fashion. To do so would cause almost all corporations to close their operations in Texas, immediately. As it is, any corporation or other entity that supports equal opportunity for women is possibly open for lawsuits for abetting women who think they have the Constitutional right to an abortion.

By the way, the Texas laws that allowed for Slavery were passed in the way you describe as meeting the rule of law. Are they still enforceable?

Blah, blah, blah, made up bullshit. No ability to reason or think for yourself.

Individuals taking the law into their own hands does not meet the definition of the rule of law. It is the opposite.

"If one man can be allowed to determine for himself what is law, every man can. That means first chaos, then tyranny."

—U.S. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter,

No one is "determining for himself what is law." The law is the law, and people can apply it as they see fit.

Defamation claims are exactly the same. The government does not directly punish defamation, but the injured party can choose to sue. That does not make it vigilantism, you lying creep.

In order to meet the standard of the Rule of Law, this law would have to be uniformly enforced. To allow people to enforce it, "as they see fit," is the opposite of uniform enforcement.

It’s still not vigilantism, you lying creep.