Companies offering abortion travel benfits

[Bradskii]

As far as the drug is concerned if you are in a state that outlaws the possession of it, then if you buy it on line and have it shipped to your house you are still guilty of possession. The laws have always worked that way. I don't know what the big deal is.

I'm not sure any have at the moment. And I'm not sure if it would allowed. But that remains to be seen...

 

[KCfromNC]

Having traveled a bit at company expense you always have to justify why you need such and such

To state law enforcement?

 

[KCfromNC]

What is likely to happen is that individual states will allow and restrict abortions in their state. That's it. All the other fear mongering and hand wringing by the left won't change that.

It isn't fear mongering when TX has already tried to sue other states for not going along with their right-wing schemes : Texas sues four states over election results in effort to help Donald Trump

 

[KCfromNC]

I looked it up. It is aiding and abetting.

Why is "aiding and abetting" someone doing something totally legal a problem?

It doesn't matter "where" the abortion was performed.

Does this apply to all laws? For example, assume a state prohibits open carry of guns. Can that state prosecute people who carry openly in other states? If the idea that it doesn't matter where an action happened is true, it seems like they could.

 

[KCfromNC]

What makes elective abortion "health care" frankly plastic surgery in most cases is not health care if it is strictly for beautification and abortion for the reason of convenience or should I say avoiding the inconvenience of having a child is even less justifiable.

Not to be blunt, but your opinions on what health care choices other people make is both irrelevant to them and off topic for the thread.

 

[durangodawood]

Does no one remember the old English common law principle that what happens in Scotland stays in Scotland?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Yes, a right to life unless you forfeit that life by murdering someone. Absurd comparison. God himself said that whosoever sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed.

It's not an absurd comparison. You just don't like the implications of it. A fundamental right to life should mean just that. If it is conditional then we already have a legal and a moral basis to deny someone their right to life.

Doesn't seem so fundamental, now.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

The right is absolutely conditional. Taking the life of another through murder forfeits your right to life. You forfeit your right to life when you attempt to commit serious bodlily injury or death upon someone.

Thanks, I agree. People don't automatically have a right to life.

Just a couple questions on that from the pro-life perspective.

Does the criminal's life not have any inherent value worth preserving? If so, who are we, or the government, to decide who lives and who dies by our own, obviously flawed human standards? Can we guarantee no innocent person is put to death by mistake? If we can't, wouldn't their lives be on our collective conscience as a society?

 

[Greg Cheney]

It's not an absurd comparison. You just don't like the implications of it. A fundamental right to life should mean just that. If it is conditional then we already have a legal and a moral basis to deny someone their right to life.

Doesn't seem so fundamental, now.

An obvious absurdity. The life of an innocent vs. the life of a murderer. Its not about not liking the implication of it; using the scriptures as guide, your philosophy is flawed.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

An obvious absurdity. The life of an innocent vs. the life of a murderer. Its not about not liking the implication of it; using the scriptures as guide, your philosophy is flawed.

Are we not all sinners? Isn’t that what your scriptures say about all men? What makes a murderer’s life any less valuable or more deserving of death than yours or mine?

All I’m saying is there are holes in the pro-life position. Your support for capital punishment is evidence you don’t think every life is precious.

 

[Greg Cheney]

Are we not all sinners? Isn’t that what your scriptures say about all men? What makes a murderer’s life any less valuable or more deserving of death than yours or mine?

All I’m saying is there are holes in the pro-life position. Your support for capital punishment is evidence you don’t think every life is precious.

A) No, I do not believe the Calvinist doctrine that people are born sinners, for sin is not a physical substance that can be inherited. I believe the scriptures teach we are born innocent and we becomes sinners when we sin; when we deliberately choose sinful self gratification over obedience to God.
B) I support the death penalty in principle, though I reject the idea of it being in the hands of the evil State. And because I believe life is precious, I support the death penalty for murderers.

 

[rjs330]

It isn't fear mongering when TX has already tried to sue other states for not going along with their right-wing schemes : Texas sues four states over election results in effort to help Donald Trump

Not the same thing.

 

[rjs330]

Why is "aiding and abetting" someone doing something totally legal a problem?



Does this apply to all laws? For example, assume a state prohibits open carry of guns. Can that state prosecute people who carry openly in other states? If the idea that it doesn't matter where an action happened is true, it seems like they could.

They can't.

 

[rjs330]

Thanks, I agree. People don't automatically have a right to life.

Just a couple questions on that from the pro-life perspective.

Does the criminal's life not have any inherent value worth preserving? If so, who are we, or the government, to decide who lives and who dies by our own, obviously flawed human standards? Can we guarantee no innocent person is put to death by mistake? If we can't, wouldn't their lives be on our collective conscience as a society?

Those are different questions on the right to life. Yes you forfeit your right to life.

Forfeiting your right to life doesn't mean there is no value left. It simply means that you have forfeited your right to life regardless of whatever value you have left because of your own actions.

The flawed human standards is a good argument against the death penalty because as we KNOW we cannot get it 100% right. For that reason I have no issues with states or governments not having the death penalty.

If a government has a death penalty and uses it on an innocent person, then yes I believe their death is on someone's conscience. Is it on societies? Maybe.

But that different that the abortion question. Because we KNOW that the baby is innocent and we as a society do bear the guilt if we allow people to arbitrarily snuff it out.

 

[Pommer]

The same as if I loaned my car to a person I knew was going to rob a liquor store across the State line. I can be charged, aiding and abetting

But “robbing a liquor store” is probably illegal in the state where the robbery takes place.

 

[QvQ]

But “robbing a liquor store” is probably illegal in the state where the robbery takes place.

There are extradition laws where an enabler, abettor or facilitator can be charged and extradited even though the facilitator and the criminal live in different jurisdictions which may have different laws concerning crimes. So if I loan my car to a person to rob a liquor store across State Lines, I can be charged and extradited.
Whether that would mean a doctor in California could be charged and extradited under Texas law, I am not certain.
I also know there are laws that apply to Cartel bosses who pay for the smuggling operations but who do not actually commit any crimes. So, if Drug Lord in X country pays for drugs to be purchased in Afghanistan, then smuggled into the US, technically the only crime is the smuggling. However, trust me, there are laws that apply to the Drug Lord, the money man and he can be charged and extradited as an accessory even if the drugs are legal in his country of origin. Under those same laws the companies paying plane fares could be held to book.
There are legal codes that apply in those cases but I am not an attorney so I can't cite chapter and verse.
Legal Jurisdiction is a thorny problem.

 

[Pommer]

There are extradition laws where an enabler, abettor or facilitator can be charged and extradited even though the facilitator and the criminal live in different jurisdictions which may have different laws concerning crimes. So if I loan my car to a person to rob a liquor store across State Lines, I can be charged and extradited.
Whether that would mean a doctor in California could be charged and extradited under Texas law, I am not certain.
I also know there are laws that apply to Cartel bosses who pay for the smuggling operations but who do not actually commit any crimes. So, if Drug Lord in X country pays for drugs to be purchased in Afghanistan, then smuggled into the US, technically the only crime is the smuggling. However, trust me, there are laws that apply to the Drug Lord, the money man and he can be charged and extradited as an accessory even if the drugs are legal in his country of origin. Under those same laws the companies paying plane fares could be held to book.
There are legal codes that apply in those cases but I am not an attorney so I can't cite chapter and verse.
Legal Jurisdiction is a thorny problem.

If the substance (or activity) is not illegal in the not-home state, then it does not matter that the substance (or activity) is illegal in the home state.

 

[QvQ]

If the substance (or activity) is not illegal in the not-home state, then it does not matter that the substance (or activity) is illegal in the home state.

That is correct, however the thread is about companies purchasing travel for women who are going out of State. The laws in some States do allow for prosecution of providers or facilitators.
Those providers, as any "facilitator" in the commission of a crime, could be charged if the law specifically provided for the facilitator separate from the criminal.
There are laws specific to organized crime and Trust me, we may not know the laws but there are laws that can reach out and snatch the money men who organize and provide funds to break or circumvent the law, even State law.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Where does the Constitution state, or even imply, that the bolded word applies to the unborn?

Where does it deny it to them? If they are not a person then virtually anything can be done to them at any time for any reason anywhere. Is that what you are advocating?

 

[civilwarbuff]

To state law enforcement?

Did you even bother to read the entire comment? If you did you would not be asking such a ridiculous question as the answer is already provided there.....SMH very sadly......