Texas abortion law

Tugger · Tue Sep 14, 2021 2:09 pm

I will add that, while some may "struggle" with the question of "when does life begin" that does not mean that everyone does and that those people must cow-tow to others "struggles" regarding their body and what they need to do. If it is not possible to live outside the womb, then it is the woman's body wholly and solely that is the issue, and that body is wholly and solely under the control of that woman. You simply cannot always but into people's lives (while advocating that people can't butt into people's lives and force their belief upon you).

Tugg

apodino · Tue Sep 14, 2021 5:13 pm

I notice there is a lot of back and forth on here with a lot of accusations being thrown around. While I am pro-life I do believe in having a civil discussion on this issue. Emily Jashinsky did an excellent radar on this issue yesterday on rising. No matter which side of the debate you fall on (and this monologue isn’t about arguing one position or the other), this is a reminder of what we should strive to be politically in our disagreements.

https://youtu.be/Gk8bTYLe1BI

Aesma · Tue Sep 14, 2021 5:42 pm

Let's be pragmatic shall we ?

There are too many people on this planet, not too few. It makes no sense at all to bring more people into the world if they're not desired.

Of course no religion can advocate that, without disappearing as a consequence. Too bad.

seb146 · Tue Sep 14, 2021 6:28 pm

bpatus297 wrote:
You simply don't want to hear the other side of this argument. You are being sanctimonious and want to push your view on everyone else plain and simple. Please spare me that the pro-lifers (using anti-choice clearly shows your position) are trying to push their views on women. I have said over and over, if the embryo is a life, its not about the women's choice to abort the fetus, rather protecting the innocent life. Weather you agree with that or not doesn't change the fact that is what they think. I am done trying to have a conversation with you, it is pointless.

Have a good day.

But we have been hearing the other side of the argument from pro-birthers. That argument is "love the fetus, hate the child" and force all women to abide by what a few believe. I ask again: where are the companion health care bills to take care of the medical needs of these mothers and babies after birth? Where are the companion health care bills for the girls who are forced to give birth? Where are the companion health care bills for women forced to carry and possibly die from ectopic pregnancies? Where is the right wing moral outrage over what happens after birth? There is none because it is all about giving birth and not caring what happens after that.

It is great you have an opinion on this. It is based on your own personal morals and feelings. Fine. Stop trying to force that on everyone else. Not all of us have the same opinion nor do we want to be forced to have the same opinion.

Dutchy · Tue Sep 14, 2021 7:53 pm

seb146 wrote:
It is great you have an opinion on this. It is based on your own personal morals and feelings. Fine. Stop trying to force that on everyone else. Not all of us have the same opinion nor do we want to be forced to have the same opinion.

And there is the main argument: people against abortion want to force their opinion on others, other people want to leave the decision by the woman.

scbriml · Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:12 pm

bpatus297 wrote:
Lets assume for a minute that an embryo is a person. Then you are saying that the killing of an innocent human being isn't anyone's business so we should just ignore it. Got it. While the killing of another person might not technically be anyone's business that is not something that a civilized society can ignore. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing".

So again, I can't say for sure when life begins, that is the crux of this argument. I am tired of people saying this is about control, for the vast majority of pro-lifers, it has to do with protecting an innocent life. Until that is accepted, we will never have a constructive dialog about this.

Anyone can play the "assumption" game. Let's assume an embryo cannot be considered "life" until it's viable outside the mother, before that point it's nobody's business except the woman's (and possibly the man involved).

So where do you stand on abortion for the victims of rape and or incest? Where do you stand on abortion for a malformed or congenitally doomed foetus? What about abortion in rare cases where the mother's life is at risk? The issue becomes beyond contentious when the pro-lifers want to ban all abortions, even in these extreme circumstances. Why should their (mainly religion-based) beliefs be forced on others?

Kent350787 · Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:11 pm

Dutchy wrote:
seb146 wrote:
It is great you have an opinion on this. It is based on your own personal morals and feelings. Fine. Stop trying to force that on everyone else. Not all of us have the same opinion nor do we want to be forced to have the same opinion.

And there is the main argument: people against abortion want to force their opinion on others, other people want to leave the decision by the woman.

Just circling back - banning abortion isn't a demonstrated successful strategy for reducing the abortion rate. But the GOP knows this isn't about actually trying to reduce the number of abortions......

DarkSnowyNight · Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:18 pm

scbriml wrote:
So where do you stand on abortion for the victims of rape and or incest?

This carve out seems to be strangely prevalent among the anti-choice crowd. It does do a good reflecting on the insincerity of their beliefs, as if an embryo were to be granted personhood, those two cases would suddenly become biologically relevant.

par13del · Wed Sep 15, 2021 1:13 pm

DarkSnowyNight wrote:
scbriml wrote:
So where do you stand on abortion for the victims of rape and or incest?

This carve out seems to be strangely prevalent among the anti-choice crowd. It does do a good reflecting on the insincerity of their beliefs, as if an embryo were to be granted personhood, those two cases would suddenly become biologically relevant.

I thought inbreeding had biological consequences by perpetuating genetic abnormalities, did such not wipe out some Royal families?

Tugger · Wed Sep 15, 2021 8:38 pm

par13del wrote:
I thought inbreeding had biological consequences by perpetuating genetic abnormalities, did such not wipe out some Royal families?

It does but it would take time for them to become an issue. Though there are some hereditary abnormalities that also become accentuated through the same process so that may speed some failures up.

Tugg

sbworcs · Wed Sep 15, 2021 8:46 pm

AirWorthy99 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:

Glad to hear you are against infanticide, because as you can see bellow, a user has already defended what the Dutch do of 'euthanizing newborns' another word for infanticide. Proves my point of all roads lead to infanticide.

The article also clearly states that there shoudl be clear evidence of pain / suffering and no long-term chance for survival. Would you rather the child suffer until they die naturally?

DarkSnowyNight · Wed Sep 15, 2021 9:04 pm

par13del wrote:
I thought inbreeding had biological consequences by perpetuating genetic abnormalities, did such not wipe out some Royal families?

It does that, but that is not the point made. Anti Choicers claim to believe a fetus is a life worthy of legal protection. The fact that this magically disappears under certain purely non-biological circumstances betrays the invalidity of that belief.

bpatus297 · Thu Sep 16, 2021 6:40 pm

DarkSnowyNight wrote:
par13del wrote:
I thought inbreeding had biological consequences by perpetuating genetic abnormalities, did such not wipe out some Royal families?

It does that, but that is not the point made. Anti Choicers claim to believe a fetus is a life worthy of legal protection. The fact that this magically disappears under certain purely non-biological circumstances betrays the invalidity of that belief.

No one said that, you added that. Care to show where that was ever said?

frmrCapCadet · Fri Sep 17, 2021 7:45 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ourt-brief

This is a pretty naked statement that the Texas abortion law is really about (angry old white) men controlling the sexuality of women. A neutral Supreme Court would quickly overturn this law. Our current ultra-conservative court may not.

casinterest · Fri Sep 17, 2021 8:05 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/17/texas-abortion-ban-jonathan-mitchell-supreme-court-brief

This is a pretty naked statement that the Texas abortion law is really about (angry old white) men controlling the sexuality of women. A neutral Supreme Court would quickly overturn this law. Our current ultra-conservative court may not.

We have a Supreme Court that is cherishing their role as technocrats of the law. They are failing to realize they are a branch of Government that is expected to rule on constitutional rights being violated, not whether they want to see how it plays out.

DarkSnowyNight · Sat Sep 18, 2021 12:24 am

casinterest wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/17/texas-abortion-ban-jonathan-mitchell-supreme-court-brief

This is a pretty naked statement that the Texas abortion law is really about (angry old white) men controlling the sexuality of women. A neutral Supreme Court would quickly overturn this law. Our current ultra-conservative court may not.

We have a Supreme Court that is cherishing their role as technocrats of the law. They are failing to realize they are a branch of Government that is expected to rule on constitutional rights being violated, not whether they want to see how it plays out.

For what it is worth, Sotomayor —and oddly enough, Roberts too— wrote pretty scathing dissents on the court's failure to act in this matter.

bpatus297 wrote:
DarkSnowyNight wrote:
It does that, but that is not the point made. Anti Choicers claim to believe a fetus is a life worthy of legal protection. The fact that this magically disappears under certain purely non-biological circumstances betrays the invalidity of that belief.

No one said that, you added that. Care to show where that was ever said?

You previously indicated you did not wish to discuss this further.

Having that been said, you are liable for your position. Anti-choicers make that carve out in virtually every discussion involving their claims. You are fully aware of this. That carve out also voids the position that a fetus is eligible for personhood.

That ridiculous 'not all men' sentiment does not apply here. You do not get to claim your position has nuance when there is clearly none to be had.

seb146 · Sat Sep 18, 2021 5:19 am

DarkSnowyNight wrote:
casinterest wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/17/texas-abortion-ban-jonathan-mitchell-supreme-court-brief

This is a pretty naked statement that the Texas abortion law is really about (angry old white) men controlling the sexuality of women. A neutral Supreme Court would quickly overturn this law. Our current ultra-conservative court may not.

We have a Supreme Court that is cherishing their role as technocrats of the law. They are failing to realize they are a branch of Government that is expected to rule on constitutional rights being violated, not whether they want to see how it plays out.

For what it is worth, Sotomayor —and oddly enough, Roberts too— wrote pretty scathing dissents on the court's failure to act in this matter.

I think Roberts is center right. I think he is farther to the left than the MAGA appointees and I think he hates that the court has been politicized by the previous administration. I think if Thomas retires or leaves his seat vacant now, Roberts would still make the court 5-4 to the right but I think he would be not as extreme right as the MAGA extremists on the bench.

casinterest · Sat Sep 18, 2021 4:58 pm

seb146 wrote:
DarkSnowyNight wrote:
casinterest wrote:

We have a Supreme Court that is cherishing their role as technocrats of the law. They are failing to realize they are a branch of Government that is expected to rule on constitutional rights being violated, not whether they want to see how it plays out.

For what it is worth, Sotomayor —and oddly enough, Roberts too— wrote pretty scathing dissents on the court's failure to act in this matter.

I think Roberts is center right. I think he is farther to the left than the MAGA appointees and I think he hates that the court has been politicized by the previous administration. I think if Thomas retires or leaves his seat vacant now, Roberts would still make the court 5-4 to the right but I think he would be not as extreme right as the MAGA extremists on the bench.

Roberts may be Center Right, but he always stood on the shoulders of what the court has decided in the past.
The new Conservative Majority is working to smash the knees in.

casinterest · Sun Sep 19, 2021 12:36 pm

It appears we have a test case in progress. Will have to wait to see if the expected parties sue.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watc ... had-a-duty

A Texas doctor has revealed that he recently performed an abortion in violation of the state's new controversial law that prohibits nearly all abortions after roughly six weeks into a pregnancy, arguing that he “had a duty of care to this patient.

Aaron747 · Sun Sep 19, 2021 12:38 pm

casinterest wrote:
It appears we have a test case in progress. Will have to wait to see if the expected parties sue.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watc ... had-a-duty

A Texas doctor has revealed that he recently performed an abortion in violation of the state's new controversial law that prohibits nearly all abortions after roughly six weeks into a pregnancy, arguing that he “had a duty of care to this patient.

This is going to be a big one.

Ken777 · Mon Sep 20, 2021 9:42 pm

And another step has been started - the first lawsuit against the Doctor who said he performed an abortion. The first person to file a lawsuit fits expectations perfectly:

- A disgraced lawyer
- A convicted Felon.
- Still in (home) confinement
- And (wait for it) is asking for $100,000
- And he lives in Arkansas

What else could ask for? :vomit:

Tugger · Tue Sep 21, 2021 12:56 am

And he has been sued:

The details of the civil suit against Alan Braid, a physician in San Antonio, are as unusual as the law itself, [...]

The plaintiff is a felon serving a federal sentence at home in Arkansas, with no connection to the abortion at issue. He said he filed the claim not because of strongly held views about reproductive rights but in part because of the $10,000 he could receive if the lawsuit is successful. A second suit filed Monday — just four paragraphs long — came from a man in Chicago who asked a state court to strike down the abortion law as invalid.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

And somehow how the weird gets weirder and Texas come off just looking stupider...

Tugg

bpatus297 · Tue Sep 21, 2021 12:07 pm

Tugger wrote:
And he has been sued:
The details of the civil suit against Alan Braid, a physician in San Antonio, are as unusual as the law itself, [...]

The plaintiff is a felon serving a federal sentence at home in Arkansas, with no connection to the abortion at issue. He said he filed the claim not because of strongly held views about reproductive rights but in part because of the $10,000 he could receive if the lawsuit is successful. A second suit filed Monday — just four paragraphs long — came from a man in Chicago who asked a state court to strike down the abortion law as invalid.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

And somehow how the weird gets weirder and Texas come off just looking stupider...

Tugg

Do they even have standing if they don't live in Texas? I guess they could have property there.

Tugger · Tue Sep 21, 2021 1:49 pm

bpatus297 wrote:
Do they even have standing if they don't live in Texas? I guess they could have property there.

Yes. The law is written such that anyone, anywhere in the USA (I am assuming it has to be within the USA) can sue under it. They did that intentionally.

Tugg

casinterest · Tue Sep 21, 2021 1:55 pm

Tugger wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:
Do they even have standing if they don't live in Texas? I guess they could have property there.

Yes. The law is written such that anyone, anywhere in the USA (I am assuming it has to be within the USA) can sue under it. They did that intentionally.

Tugg

So in other words, they made it a federal issue. Guess who has clout?

par13del · Tue Sep 21, 2021 7:51 pm

Tugger wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:
Do they even have standing if they don't live in Texas? I guess they could have property there.

Yes. The law is written such that anyone, anywhere in the USA (I am assuming it has to be within the USA) can sue under it. They did that intentionally.

Tugg

Which may just be a loophole the feds can exploit for cross state actions which should fall under federal jurisdiction, not a lawyer, just a thought.

Tugger · Tue Sep 21, 2021 9:41 pm

I don't think that is an issue. You are allowed to sue across state lines. It doesn't automatically make a federal issue.

Tugg

casinterest · Tue Sep 21, 2021 9:45 pm

Tugger wrote:
I don't think that is an issue. You are allowed to sue across state lines. It doesn't automatically make a federal issue.

Tugg

But I think it does. If someone is suing from out of state over a federally protected right, then I think it does make it a federal issue, and i think this is what the Lawyer is testing.

Tugger · Tue Sep 21, 2021 9:52 pm

casinterest wrote:
Tugger wrote:
I don't think that is an issue. You are allowed to sue across state lines. It doesn't automatically make a federal issue.

Tugg

But I think it does. If someone is suing from out of state over a federally protected right, then I think it does make it a federal issue, and i think this is what the Lawyer is testing.

But it is not over a "federally protected right" at this point. It is just over a law that say you can sue someone that gets, or assists someone in getting, an abortion after 6 weeks. At this point it is the courts that will decide this (as they always would). And I am sure both state and fed will have something to say and someday it will end up back in front of the USSC.

Tugg

casinterest · Tue Sep 21, 2021 11:57 pm

Tugger wrote:
casinterest wrote:
Tugger wrote:
I don't think that is an issue. You are allowed to sue across state lines. It doesn't automatically make a federal issue.

Tugg

But I think it does. If someone is suing from out of state over a federally protected right, then I think it does make it a federal issue, and i think this is what the Lawyer is testing.

But it is not over a "federally protected right" at this point. It is just over a law that say you can sue someone that gets, or assists someone in getting, an abortion after 6 weeks. At this point it is the courts that will decide this (as they always would). And I am sure both state and fed will have something to say and someday it will end up back in front of the USSC.

Tugg

Assisting in a federally protected right, is akin to arresting someone for assisting someone with voting. There is no reason to sue people for helping do something that is legal. If anything, it is harassment, abuse and invasion of privacy by the State of Texas.

DarkSnowyNight · Wed Sep 22, 2021 2:24 am

casinterest wrote:

Assisting in a federally protected right, is akin to arresting someone for assisting someone with voting. There is no reason to sue people for helping do something that is legal. If anything, it is harassment, abuse and invasion of privacy by the State of Texas.

The fact that it is a very clear abuse of process will give the feds standing to intervene.

That is not in question, but it is an issue as to whether or not they will. The USSC bent a lot of rules in not hearing the appeal in the first place. If it gets to them again, Americans will have to contend with faithless actors like Amy Barret and Clarence Thomas. Things already look bad at the highest level, and it would have to get there first.

FWIW, it does not look like the USSC will have the ability to punt the upcoming MS case the way they did TX.

AirframeAS · Fri Sep 24, 2021 11:57 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
AirframeAS wrote:
phatfarmlines wrote:

We've talked about this before on this forum, but Roe v Wade still means anyone can cross the border to a state that does allow abortions, and the private citizens won't be able to sue since it's not within Texas state border.

That isn't necessarily true.... Lets say a woman, living in Texas, decides to go to Colorado and get an abortion and recovers from the procedure and returns to Texas. Once the woman returns to Texas, if anyone found out that she went to Colorado for the procedure, she can still get sued regardless. The abortion does not have to take place in Texas.

Colorado could make a law making it a felony to tell anyone about medical procedures in Colorado. Sue the Texas woman, get 10.000$, spend some years in Colorado prison...

Seems fair...

best regards
Thomas

Not really, you still have the HIPPA laws that is basically federal law. Texas and its complaining offended citizens would lose pretty quick. This is called "countersuing".

frmrCapCadet · Sat Sep 25, 2021 2:10 am

Remember a Republican state has said that offering a thirsty person standing in line to vote a drink of water is breaking the law. Republican Gospel: I was thirsty and you kicked me in the face.

Tugger · Fri Oct 01, 2021 9:43 pm

The Federal suit is moving forward:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-ju ... 1633112921

Can legislatures pass laws for which they have not culpability over? Should they be able to do such? I guess you could pass all sorts of laws then for anything and their would be no repercussion (legal at least).

I think ultimately that will be the laws undoing. Otherwise any state can pass anything with this process (empowering the public to sue whomever and get whatever money, for anything they wish to eliminate).

Tugg

Aaron747 · Fri Oct 01, 2021 11:09 pm

Tugger wrote:
The Federal suit is moving forward:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-ju ... 1633112921

Can legislatures pass laws for which they have not culpability over? Should they be able to do such? I guess you could pass all sorts of laws then for anything and their would be no repercussion (legal at least).

I think ultimately that will be the laws undoing. Otherwise any state can pass anything with this process (empowering the public to sue whomever and get whatever money, for anything they wish to eliminate).

Tugg

Exactly why it's so important to test this in court - the implications are far reaching.

Tugger · Sat Oct 02, 2021 6:48 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
Tugger wrote:
The Federal suit is moving forward:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-ju ... 1633112921

Can legislatures pass laws for which they have not culpability over? Should they be able to do such? I guess you could pass all sorts of laws then for anything and their would be no repercussion (legal at least).

I think ultimately that will be the laws undoing. Otherwise any state can pass anything with this process (empowering the public to sue whomever and get whatever money, for anything they wish to eliminate).

Tugg

Exactly why it's so important to test this in court - the implications are far reaching.

Yes, I think if it succeeds it will becomes a monster. It could be used as a method for states desiring stricter gun control as well.

Tugg

par13del · Sun Oct 03, 2021 12:43 pm

Tugger wrote:
Tugg

Exactly why it's so important to test this in court - the implications are far reaching.[/quote]
Yes, I think if it succeeds it will becomes a monster. It could be used as a method for states desiring stricter gun control as well.

Tugg[/quote]
If it was the GOP who were mostly strict gun control advocates, yes, it would be used in a heartbeat, but they are not, it is mostly the democrats. So do you really see the dems using a GOP inspired law to further the campaign against guns, somehow I don't think they will.

seb146 · Sun Oct 03, 2021 3:21 pm

par13del wrote:
If it was the GOP who were mostly strict gun control advocates, yes, it would be used in a heartbeat, but they are not, it is mostly the democrats. So do you really see the dems using a GOP inspired law to further the campaign against guns, somehow I don't think they will.

Can someone explain something? I have been asking but no one can explain.

Republicans point to the Heller decision and insist that 2A is settled law so there can be no more litigation because it is settled law but Republicans keep making more restrictive laws against abortion with the idea that Roe v. Wade is not settled and can be overturned. How can we have both settled law and not at the same time?

par13del · Sun Oct 03, 2021 9:33 pm

Republicans claim in relation to Heller, what do democrats and other gun control advocates claim, we can assume for them it is not settled law.
As we digress for this thread topic for a minute, I have always viewed militia's as citizen army, which means for the most part they have their own weapons at their home, so for the Second Amendment, self defense weapons at home would be fine, a tank, artillery piece, bazooka etc, would violate.
Heller was a 5 to 4 decision, who is to say it won't be overturned in another ruling, especially if a state's National Guard can be deemed a militia.

chimborazo · Mon Oct 04, 2021 7:39 am

bpatus297 wrote:
emperortk wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:

That's relative. Some science studies say that life begins way before that. For me its in conception. There isn't a complete consensus on that today, not even from scientists.

Yes.

Why not go even further back than conception? Sperm cells are alive, so it's a bit bizarre to say that life "begins" at conception.

In my view, millions of men are responsible for the daily murder of literally quadrillions of lives, and I will not rest until my state government absolutely forbids these wanton crimes and punishes them with the swift and harsh hand of justice!

Sperm, just like an egg only have 23 chromosomes. A zygote, or fetus has 46, pretty big distinction.

Fetuses with Turner Syndrome have 45 chromosomes. So which side of the distinction are they on?

Aaron747 · Mon Oct 04, 2021 8:18 am

chimborazo wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:
emperortk wrote:

Why not go even further back than conception? Sperm cells are alive, so it's a bit bizarre to say that life "begins" at conception.

In my view, millions of men are responsible for the daily murder of literally quadrillions of lives, and I will not rest until my state government absolutely forbids these wanton crimes and punishes them with the swift and harsh hand of justice!

Sperm, just like an egg only have 23 chromosomes. A zygote, or fetus has 46, pretty big distinction.

Fetuses with Turner Syndrome have 45 chromosomes. So which side of the distinction are they on?

Absolutely hilarious - they're counting chromosomes now :lol:

seb146 · Mon Oct 04, 2021 6:37 pm

par13del wrote:
Republicans claim in relation to Heller, what do democrats and other gun control advocates claim, we can assume for them it is not settled law.
As we digress for this thread topic for a minute, I have always viewed militia's as citizen army, which means for the most part they have their own weapons at their home, so for the Second Amendment, self defense weapons at home would be fine, a tank, artillery piece, bazooka etc, would violate.
Heller was a 5 to 4 decision, who is to say it won't be overturned in another ruling, especially if a state's National Guard can be deemed a militia.

I want to respond to your points but I do not want to derail the thread.

I guess I think it is interesting that one side is trying to use surgical precision and allow people to make their own choices and the other just wants to burn everything to the ground. Democrats are willing to work within the confines of Heller but Republicans want to ban all reproductive choices period. One side seems to be playing chess while the other side seems to be playing cornhole.

casinterest · Thu Oct 07, 2021 2:21 am

And we have an injunction:

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/06/10402211 ... ortion-law

U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman agreed in his 113-page ruling Wednesday night.

"A person's right under the Constitution to choose to obtain an abortion prior to fetal viability is well established," he wrote. "Fully aware that depriving its citizens of this right by direct state action would be flagrantly unconstitutional, the State contrived an unprecedented and transparent statutory scheme to do just that."

He added later:

From the moment S.B. 8 went into effect, women have been unlawfully prevented from exercising control over their lives in ways that are protected by the Constitution. That other courts may find a way to avoid this conclusion is theirs to decide; this Court will not sanction one more day of this offensive deprivation of such an important right.

Seems rather straightforward for an injunction. However it lays open areas where the the court of appeals might overturn it.

However the state having defended the law, now means that this is a direct state action doesn't it?

77Phoebe · Mon Oct 11, 2021 5:21 pm

If people spent half the time trying to cut unwanted pregnancies rather than having pointless, inane discussions on the viability of foetuses and 'what right do men have in decisions' the whole of society would be better.

At the moment abortion is a necessary evil but it is not consequenceless.

This is a really easy problem to fix. No pregnancy - no abortion.
This is actually a problem that could go away in nine months and there aren't many of those in the world.

(Obviously there are exceptions rape, medical reasons.)

seb146 · Tue Oct 12, 2021 6:08 pm

77Phoebe wrote:
If people spent half the time trying to cut unwanted pregnancies rather than having pointless, inane discussions on the viability of foetuses and 'what right do men have in decisions' the whole of society would be better.

At the moment abortion is a necessary evil but it is not consequenceless.

This is a really easy problem to fix. No pregnancy - no abortion.
This is actually a problem that could go away in nine months and there aren't many of those in the world.

(Obviously there are exceptions rape, medical reasons.)

But the same people who want to ban all abortion period are the same people who tell women they can not have birth control at all and refuse to teach reproductive education at all. THAT is a huge problem!

737307 · Tue Oct 12, 2021 8:53 pm

Tugger wrote:
The Federal suit is moving forward:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-ju ... 1633112921

Can legislatures pass laws for which they have not culpability over? Should they be able to do such? I guess you could pass all sorts of laws then for anything and their would be no repercussion (legal at least).

I think ultimately that will be the laws undoing. Otherwise any state can pass anything with this process (empowering the public to sue whomever and get whatever money, for anything they wish to eliminate).

Tugg

No. It will be the undoing of the Rule of Law.

Aaron747 · Thu Oct 14, 2021 12:10 am

Dieuwer wrote:
Tugger wrote:
The Federal suit is moving forward:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-ju ... 1633112921

Can legislatures pass laws for which they have not culpability over? Should they be able to do such? I guess you could pass all sorts of laws then for anything and their would be no repercussion (legal at least).

I think ultimately that will be the laws undoing. Otherwise any state can pass anything with this process (empowering the public to sue whomever and get whatever money, for anything they wish to eliminate).

Tugg

No. It will be the undoing of the Rule of Law.

Agreed on that - this type of law achieves nothing positive.

casinterest · Fri Oct 22, 2021 5:45 pm

It appears the Supreme Court is about to totally destroy the GOP states business climate.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/22/politics ... index.html

Once again they have failed to allow women control over their bodies. This will cause chills throughout corporate America. Especially as it now seems plausible that the Supreme Court will allow GOP states to destroy women's rights to choose by reversing Roe vs Wade.

seb146 · Fri Oct 22, 2021 5:51 pm

casinterest wrote:
It appears the Supreme Court is about to totally destroy the GOP states business climate.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/22/politics ... index.html

Once again they have failed to allow women control over their bodies. This will cause chills throughout corporate America. Especially as it now seems plausible that the Supreme Court will allow GOP states to destroy women's rights to choose by reversing Roe vs Wade.

And states who try to uphold a woman's right to make decisions about her body will be met with cries from the right of "BUT IT'S SETTLED LAW!!!" and "WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO UNDO LAW THAT IS DONE!!" with absolutely ZERO sense of irony.

ztarizona · Sat Oct 23, 2021 1:52 pm

bpatus297 wrote:
scbriml wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:

Again, that is your opinion. When life begins is not settled science. After all, you are just a lump of cells too, albeit a few more than an embryo.

Unviable, being the key word.

You didn’t answer the question - why is it any of their business?

Lets assume for a minute that an embryo is a person. Then you are saying that the killing of an innocent human being isn't anyone's business so we should just ignore it. Got it. While the killing of another person might not technically be anyone's business that is not something that a civilized society can ignore. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing".

So again, I can't say for sure when life begins, that is the crux of this argument. I am tired of people saying this is about control, for the vast majority of pro-lifers, it has to do with protecting an innocent life. Until that is accepted, we will never have a constructive dialog about this.

You have to see what you did here - "Let's assume" - no, let's not because we can't.

An Embryo is not a person. A fetus is not a person. A "baby" can at a time be an embryo, a fetus, a life, a child all or one at once in English vernacular. But we are not talking esoterics here. We as humans, at least until current times, had/have domain over our bodies. When a woman is forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy, there is both the sin of an unwanted child being born into a probably very tumultuous situation without full love, but also the sin of condescension, that somehow somebody else in this whole world knows whats best for that woman when they don't have to carry that pregnancy to term but she does. That is as disgusting to me as you reading about an abortion (assuming you are disgusted by the thought). I see this as Handmaid's Tale level insanity.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net