Federal judge temporarily blocks TX abortion law

[TLK Valentine]

With different history and relationships with alcohol clearly. I'm no expert on Wyoming but I am going to go out on a limb here and say that the teetotal liquor is the devil southern attitude would fall a bit flat there outside of Mormon circles.

Interestingly, I just finished a fascinating Podcast series on prohibition (American History Tellers), that pointed out that the temperance movement that led to Prohibition was partially stoked by post-WWI xenophobia and anti immigration sentiments: beer and wine being associated with Germans and Italians, respectively...

When in doubt, blame the foreigners...

 

[Mayzoo]

Well, quite. It is the children's and their parents' business, not yours or mine. And in the UK at least, children may drink and smoke at home with parental permission. The alcohol and tobacco laws apply to public places. Is it not the same in America?

In many states, a minor can drink in public if they are within view of their parents. So yes, in those states they can definitely legally drink at home if in view of their parents. Here is part of the Texas law since Texas law is part of the subject of this thread.


(b) A minor may possess an alcoholic beverage:

(1) while in the course and scope of the minor's employment if the minor is an employee of a licensee or permittee and the employment is not prohibited by this code;

(2) if the minor is in the visible presence of his adult parent, guardian, or spouse, or other adult to whom the minor has been committed by a court;

(3) if the minor is under the immediate supervision of a commissioned peace officer engaged in enforcing the provisions of this code; or

(4) if the beverage is lawfully provided to the minor under Section 106.16.

ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE CHAPTER 106. PROVISIONS RELATING TO AGE

 

[loveofourlord]

I still do not understand how to reconcile the principle that the unborn are persons when it comes to abortion but not when a woman suffers a miscarriage.

By that principle to be consistent shouldn't there be a funeral for the unborn' person'?

careful some states do allow for charging murder for miscarriages that were reckless.

 

[Whyayeman]

careful some states do allow for charging murder for miscarriages that were reckless.

That is quite different.

Do any states mandate funerals for the miscarried? Do any Churches carry out memorial ceremonies for them? I have not heard of such a thing and for me it points towards double-think, or worse, a double standard: a foetus being only a person when it suits the anti-abortion lobby's book.

 

[Innsmuthbride]

When I was stationed in Maryland while I was in the Navy. I was able to have beer or wine but not mixed drinks because I was only 18 at the time. This was back in the early 1970's

 

[NotreDame]

I really don't know what to make of #108 above.

I was giving my opinion; I am certainly not part of a 'colloquy'. (Not sure what 'decontextaloxed' is.)

And, gosh, I knew that the Bible has been translated.

You don’t know?

Well, let’s review. You apparently thought to throw Christians under the bus, accusing them, or a subset of them, as making claims against abortion that aren’t supported by any verses in the Bible.

Then, when presented with OT verses supporting a Christian rejection of abortion as sinful, your maneuver was to shift the focus from the Bible to Jesus’ words in the NT.

When presented with an argument Jesus was the same God in the OT, and that the OT is practically Jesus’ words, and Jesus specifically stated he didn’t come to abolish the law, and he lived by the OT law,m, your reply was to, once again, move the goal posts, and say the Bible doesn’t “cut any ice” with you.

So, you haphazardly ventured an opinion about the a subset of Christians using the Bible to condemn abortion. When confronted with a substantive rebuttal to your view, the rebuttal specifically being the Bible verses and their translation, you offered nothing substantive but moving goal posts.

Perhaps you shouldn’t have commented upon whether the Bible does provide support against abortion and thr fetus as a person without having done the research first.

I am certainly not part of a 'colloquy'.

To the contrary, you very much were and are, as colloquy is a dialogue.

Not sure what 'decontextaloxed'

Of course, typos are foreign to you, but let’s not operate under the pretense you didn’t have enough information to understand the actual word to be used. You made a comment the textual exegesis I provided was “decontextualized.” Of course, you provided nothing to support this claim.

The larger issue is your claims about what the Bible does or doesn’t say about abortion and the status of the fetus, and a conspicuous lack of any support for your POV.

 

[Whyayeman]

You don’t know?

Well, let’s review. You apparently thought to throw Christians under the bus, accusing them, or a subset of them, as making claims against abortion that aren’t supported by any verses in the Bible.

Then, when presented with OT verses supporting a Christian rejection of abortion as sinful, your maneuver was to shift the focus from the Bible to Jesus’ words in the NT.

When presented with an argument Jesus was the same God in the OT, and that the OT is practically Jesus’ words, and Jesus specifically stated he didn’t come to abolish the law, and he lived by the OT law,m, your reply was to, once again, move the goal posts, and say the Bible doesn’t “cut any ice” with you.

So, you haphazardly ventured an opinion about the a subset of Christians using the Bible to condemn abortion. When confronted with a substantive rebuttal to your view, the rebuttal specifically being the Bible verses and their translation, you offered nothing substantive but moving goal posts.

Perhaps you shouldn’t have commented upon whether the Bible does provide support against abortion and thr fetus as a person without having done the research first.



To the contrary, you very much were and are, as colloquy is a dialogue.



Of course, typos are foreign to you, but let’s not operate under the pretense you didn’t have enough information to understand the actual word to be used. You made a comment the textual exegesis I provided was “decontextualized.” Of course, you provided nothing to support this claim.

The larger issue is your claims about what the Bible does or doesn’t say about abortion and the status of the fetus, and a conspicuous lack of any support for your POV.

I see you like to argue about the Bible. I have no interest in theological issues - or goalposts. There is plenty of support for my position on abortion already on this thread. I dislike unnecessary repetition.

Please consider this 'colloquy' closed.