Tennessee Republican files 'abortion trafficking' bill for pregnant minors
Tennessee Republican files 'abortion trafficking' bill for pregnant minors
The bill would allow parents to take their pregnant child out of state for an abortion, but other adults would face a Class C felony.
A Tennessee Republican hopes to establish an "abortion trafficking" felony for adults who help pregnant minors get an out-of-state abortion without parental permission, an effort reproductive health advocates argue will run afoul of constitutional rights such as interstate travel.
Rep. Jason Zachary, R-Knoxville, filed House Bill 1895 on Monday. The legislation would establish a new Class C felony, which could carry three to 15 years in prison, for an adult that "recruits, harbors or transports" a pregnant minor for the purposes of receiving an out-of-state abortion or for getting abortion medication.
You're viewing a single thread.
Reminder that the Civil War wasn't because Lincoln was going to outlaw slavery.
He repeatedly said he had no desire to do that.
The flashpoint was the southern states wanted to force northern states to return escaped slaves, and the feds said a state couldn't force another state to follow their state laws.
And we're still having the same argument apparently.
Conservative states have always wanted to force their laws on liberal states. Because they see their state residents as property/serfs that the ruling conservatives control.
Yeah, there was only one right that was in question. The average confederate soldier was there because he wanted to protect the white mans ability to own slaves because he thought he was going to get rich doing it once the war was over.
Nope.
The majority of soldiers for the south were lied to and genuinely believed they were fighting for states rights.
They didn't know they were fighting for a more powerful federal government that would have the ability to force some states to follow the laws of other states.
Ironically the civil war was the final push that made the feds do what the south wanted to begin with. It's just the feds sided with northern states not southern states.
Do you have any sources? I never heard of confederate soldiers being lied to.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_Army#Morale_and_motivations
Some historians emphasize that Civil War soldiers were driven by political ideology, holding firm beliefs about the importance of liberty, Union, or state rights, or about the need to protect or to destroy slavery. Others point to less overtly political reasons to fight, such as the defense of one's home and family, or the honor and brotherhood to be preserved when fighting alongside other men. Most historians agree that, no matter what he thought about when he went into the war, the experience of combat affected him profoundly and sometimes affected his reasons for continuing to fight.
Now there is also another bit where it acknowledges some were explicitly fighting to defend slavery. However since what those researchers are using is letters....
Only the wealthiest southerners could read and write, and if you were from the South and wealthy, it's a pretty safe bet your family owned slaves.
But the vast amount of southerners were too poor to ever afford slaves. So that greatly skews the sample.
But even the ones who explicitly stated they were fighting to keep slavery legal, the feds and Lincoln were adamant they weren't going to outlaw slavery on a federal level.
So those traitors who said they fought to keep slavery legal, were fighting to prevent something that wasn't going to happen. They just thought it would because the leaders of the Confederacy lied to them about it.
Just like the 1/6 traitors believed the reason they were attempting to overthrow the American government, was because they thought Biden stole an election.
Just because a conservative believes something, doesn't mean it's true.
I see nothing here of soldiers being lied to.
They weren't. Its just like today where they were steeped in propaganda. Thats no excuse. We should have crushed them after the war. Since we didn't we have had to repeatedly deal with the traitors.
Even now we should be crushing Texas instead of playing their games. We are responsible for enabling their abhorrent behavior.
Well, I can't think of a simpler way to explain it.
I'm sorry you can't understand, but You're doing that thing where you start replying to my other comments and wanting to have the same argument multiple times, and I just don't have the motivation or energy to help people who do that.
Your argument doesn't seem all that separated from the Nazi Nuremberg defense
"I was just following orders"
The world collectively decided that defense would not stand
Nope.
What I'm doing would be more like trying to understand why Germans fell for propaganda and fought for the nazis.
It doesn't excuse what they did.
But if we don't understand why they did it, how are we supposed to prevent a future generation from falling for the same shit?
Because, again, we just saw a group of conservatives attempt to overthrow the American government because they believed propaganda.
Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, we should try to prevent there from being another "next time"?
You don't think that's something that's important?
You should learn to read, then, like those poor confederates. You'd be better off with some literacy.
Then, by all means, link me to the part where they say they were lied to.
Literally linked and quoted above, and you're too fucking stupid to read. Many were manipulated or were not fighting over slavery specifically. That doesn't magically make the conflict not about slavery, it's just context that goes to explain how the south is so brainwashed about it. It's true, NOT because what the south believes today, but because of what literally happened.
Again, it's just nuanced context. It's not a claim about the war not revolving around slavery. Fucking learn to read.
"Now there is also another bit where it acknowledges some were explicitly fighting to defend slavery. However since what those researchers are using is letters…"
You're really handwaving away what's called a primary source of information. Those letters are actually really important for understanding what was going on in the heads of the soldiers at that time. The fact that they were explicitly writing about the right to own slaves shows that they were aware of what explicit right they were fighting for.
The South believed that Lincoln was going to outlaw slavery. Even if your claim is that true that Lincoln didn’t want to, you must remember that “perspective is reality”.
Shit, accidentally deleted when I meant to edit. My bad.
Was going to add "halfway over" instead of over because Lincoln never mentioned outlawing slavery till the civil war was halfway over.
But I don't get listening to the conservative lies over what was actually happening.
Do you think 1/6 was Republicans trying to save an election from being stolen?
That clearly wasn't what happened, but that's what conservatives claim.
And you apparently want to believe anything they say
Dude, you deleted your entire comment and are trying to frame the guy like if he's believing GOP talking points. OP disagreed that it wasn't about state rights, and it was about slavery. And now you're here saying he's believing lies? You're the liar, my guy.
I did, like I said I did...
Because the delete and edit buttons are tiny on a phone and right next to each other...
But after all the insults you've thrown out this morning, I'm just going to block you.
I was hoping just ignoring and not responding to you would be enough, but apparently it's not.
Because you're a liar? Good riddance.
Now you’re asking off topic questions, we’re talking about the civil war here.
But to supplement you, no, I do not believe the election was stolen. Now let’s get on back to the civil war.
Cool
When Lincoln and the traitors disagreed about why the civil war started (after it started) and we have actual proof from Lincoln saying he wasn't interested in federally banning slavery ..
Why are you taking the words of the traitors over Lincoln?
I thought the modern analogy would help, but I think it just confused you more unfortunately
I remember you from the last time this topic came up. Homie, I mean this as genuinely as possible, I'm honest to God trying to help; I think you should consider taking some communications or public speaking lessons or something. There's a lot of good books or resources on YouTube on the matter if classes don't make sense for you. You kind of just come across as a troll. Idk if that's on purpose, but that's why people react so badly to what you're saying. It's not your ideas, it's you, it's how you communicate.
Or...
Maybe seeing people still falling for conservative propaganda from over a century ago is a little frustrating considering how conservative propaganda literally just resulted in another attempt at overthrowing the democratically elected government of America...
Maybe, just maybe, some things are worth getting upset about
So, pointing out that the Civil War was about Slaves is conservative propaganda? How does that make any sense?
Because that's not what actually happened...
It was because the south wanted the feds to force the north to return escaped slaves, even tho they were no longer slaves once they got to the north...
I genuinely don't understand why people don't understand why those aren't the same things.
The topic at the time did involve slavery, but what the south started the civil war about was the feds refusing to force northern states to enforce laws that didn't exist in the northern states.
It wasn't to keep slavery legal in south. Because Lincoln wouldn't stop saying he had no desire to federally ban slavery, because he thought that would be enough to appease the south and avoid civil war.
Bringing us full circle to why the details still matter:
Appeasing conservative governments never works, they'll never be happy unless they get everything they want. So why meet them halfway?
The line will need to be drawn eventually anyways
I understand that it's impossible to tell if someone is being genuine on the internet, so I'm begging you to break out Hanlon's Razor and assume that I'm just stupid instead of malicious.
Look, if you wanna be upset, by all means, knock yourself out, you're going to unironically have a great time on the internet. If you want to do something productive and actually persuade people instead of just get worked up, then it would absolutely be worth your time to work on persuasive writing and speech.
It says a lot that your issue isn't any of the people still falling for conservative propaganda...
But that I'm not being persuasive enough, hell, if that's your only problem, wouldn't a better use of your time using your superior communication skills to help them understand?
But I'll never have to try and explain this to you again, if you don't want to see my comments either, it's a very simple process for you as well
Takes less than a second
I don't have a problem, I'm trying to be helpful.
Responding with an ad hominem is pathetic. Stay on topic or fuck off with insults.
Ironic.
Yes, it is ironic that I have to point it out.
Sometimes a man’s character in an argument must be taken to account, depending on the context.
Example: A Neo-Nazi arguing about racial science. I personally don’t think anyone should give that guy the time of day.
They shouldn't give him the time of day because he's WRONG, not because he's a Nazi. ... I know that's a difficult sentence to parse because Nazis are wrong on basically everything, but it is VERY important.
But we’re saying he’s wrong because of his character and his character may inherently lead to some beliefs that are… incompatible with a sane society.
The point is, Nazis are bad because they logically and imperically think really fucking stupid things and want to do really bad things.
It should not EVER matter what label someone attaches to themselves. It should only matter if what they want is backed by evidence and reality and ideally some compassion and grace. That simply is not true of Nazis. They're bad because they're stupid monsters who are wrong. It shouldn't matter if they all start calling themselves activists or take over the Libertarian label. Their ideas and desires are wrong.
I see your point, but to say that the Civil War wasn't about slavery is as stupid as holocaust deniers.
From how I read the comment above yours, it doesn't imply the civil war wasn't about slavery.
It was about the south wanting to strip state rights away from states that disagree with them.
The topic at the time was they thought once someone was a slave, they're always a slave. Even if they're in a state where slavery is illegal. So in that respect, it was about slavery.
But they're literally doing the same thing right now by trying to criminalize someone crossing state lines to get an abortion.
Which is why the specifics matter.
If they start another civil war about their residents traveling out of state for abortions where they're legal, you could say that civil war was about abortion, but that's not really accurate.
Because just like back then, Dems aren't trying to force Southern states to change their laws. Just saying one state can't change another states laws.
The root cause is conservative states trying to force liberal states to follow conservative laws from a different state.
Reminder that the Civil War wasn't because Lincoln was going to outlaw slavery.
He implied it wasn't.
I guess it's in how you read it. I don't read it as such. Edit: maybe it's because I take the entire comment into consideration instead of just one line in the entire comment.
Only if you stop reading after the first sentence. They only implied that the war wasn't fought over abolition, not that it wasn't about slavery.
The flashpoint was the southern states wanted to force northern states to return escaped slaves, and the feds said a state couldn't force another state to follow their state laws.
The above clearly implies that slavery, and how it was enforced by federal law, was the reason the civil war was started.
No they didn't. At all. They said it wasn't about BANNING slavery, not that it wasn't about slavery in general. They very specifically said it was about southern states wanting to force northern states to return slaves when those states disn't even have legal slavery.
It was still about slavery and "states rights" even in what they said, just not the south reeing about a national ban - at first.
That's the entire fucking reason the "states rights" argument has ANY air, because it DID start as a despute on how far a state's laws went. That doesn't mean it was magically not all revolving around slavery.
It's also factually incorrect, since the Feds specifically implemented a law mandating that Northern states return slaves.
Yep, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which was part of the 1850 Compromise.
And, at the time, the Supreme Court agreed. In one of their most reviled and embarassing decisions. Let's watch them do it again and again now.