Texas abortion ban to take effect Wednesday; pro-aborts seeking last-minute block

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: LSU2018

Not everyone can take BC. People with clotting disorders for one.

You should suggest outlawing it then, since everyone can't take it. How unfair that not everyone can take it.

a reply to: LSU2018
Depends on the kind of birth control. And you can boost the effectiveness if you can convince your partner to wear a condom.
Not even tubal ligation is 100% effective.
And, it doesn't matter how small the number is, not everyone fits into your cookie cutter view of the world.

a reply to: LSU2018

I can discuss it all day long. Do you think women pregnant with children with profound disabilities should have a choice?

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Show me the post where I said I had it?

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I personally know two, my daughter and niece have balanced translocations. I do as well but too old to worry about that anymore. Trisomy 18, look it up.

So, unlike you, who clearly didn’t make good choices, my loved ones could be harassed by these bounty assholes for nothing more than their genes. Yay!

You mean this post? Where you said you had Trisomy 18?

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: LSU2018

Not everyone can take BC. People with clotting disorders for one.

Hope you didn't get the vaccine then.....

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I personally know two, my daughter and niece have balanced translocations. I do as well but too old to worry about that anymore. Trisomy 18, look it up.

So, unlike you, who clearly didn’t make good choices, my loved ones could be harassed by these bounty assholes for nothing more than their genes. Yay!

You mean this post? Where you said you had Trisomy 18?

So, you don’t know what balanced translocation is? Cool, I didn’t realize I was speaking with someone with such limited knowledge.

Carry on.

originally posted by: knoxie

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I personally know two, my daughter and niece have balanced translocations. I do as well but too old to worry about that anymore. Trisomy 18, look it up.

So, unlike you, who clearly didn’t make good choices, my loved ones could be harassed by these bounty assholes for nothing more than their genes. Yay!

You mean this post? Where you said you had Trisomy 18?

So, you don’t know what balanced translocation is? Cool, I didn’t realize I was speaking with someone with such limited knowledge.

Carry on.

You said look up Trisomy 18....I did. I even quoted the definition.

Again...not going to argue with someone that has a mental handicap.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: LSU2018

Not everyone can take BC. People with clotting disorders for one.

Hope you didn't get the vaccine then.....

I would hope people with clotting disorders would speak to their doctors about vaccines.

a reply to: LSU2018
Which leads me to ask the same question I asked in my first post...
What is a medical emergency?
If one knows that there is a good chance a pregnancy will result in her death, should she really have to wait around for that condition to become critical posing impending death?
The only exception in this law if for a medical emergency.. that is it and the supreme court has given it a green light to be enforced..
No to protect the mothers health so if that condition happens to destroy a few organs and leave her needing dialysis the rest of her life, well I guess that is ok.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

If you have the constitutional right to shoot and kill someone who has broken onto your house because you saw them as a threat to your life, your possessions, your way of life...
Then by that same standard a women can terminate her pregnancy if it poses a threat to her life, health, way of life.

Are you saying a baby is an intruder, not invited through sex?

In the case of health, i can agree. Way of life? Thats just saying "i choose to take zero responsibility for my behavior".

Nope.

I think the big picture is being missed. People say abortion is murder. What if it was finally codified as murder? There is no statute of limitations and some serious ex post facto could happen.

But what has always been a twisted logic is those that speak in favor of abortion are typically very much against the death penalty even in heinous crimes such as killers, rapists and pedophiles which in my opinion shouldn’t be much of a discussion other than method of dispatch.

Maybe that is why pro-abortionists is typically death penalty.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


It is a thing. As a matter fact, Roe V Wade was the 3rd ruling that addressed reproductive rights. The first case,
Griswold v. Connecticut, in 1965, SCOTUS ruled that the state had no right to ban contraception to married women. The second case, Eisenstadt v. Baird, in 1972, one year before Roe V Wade, SCOTUS decided that unmarried women had the RIGHT to use contraception.

SCOTUS cannot grant rights, they can only recognize the rights that our legal framework has. Your sleight of hand is nonsense. There are no "reproductive rights". There are a series of court rulings stating that the laws under review were unconstitutional. If there were "reproductive rights" i'd think a law would be written to protect them, like any other rights that we have.

It's challenged every time a state enacts a law that violates its mandates.

No. It is not. What is challenged is the law that is being challenged in that court case. You may believe that its standing in for it....but it is not. That is not how any of that works. You cannot challenge a court ruling issued by SCOTUS as they are the ultimate legal review. What you CAN do is write new laws, and then see if when challenged what the court says about them. But it isn't challening Roe v Wade, as Roe v Wade is nothing more than a legal precedent, not a law.

Nonsense. Women own their rights, their rights to contraception and their rights to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Republican's are trying to take those rights away, to put that genii back n the bottle, by claiming, like you, "That wasn't really ever a right, Sweety. You don't own your own body. You need elected politicians to control your reproductive system for you, because you might make a wrong choice.

You have created an argument that has nothing to do with what we are talking about here. I have no idea what to say to your monologue here, other than "congrats, i guess?"

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

You are considered 4 weeks pregnant from the date of the last period not from when you miss one. So, if you do not have regular cycle, you may not even think to check until 5 weeks. That would give you less than a week to have it performed. If your birth control failed, you get 7 days to make a very hard decision.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
Hey, we bombed a whole mess of villages filled with kids to protect our way of life. Or so they claimed.
Sorry, leaving the way of life part in.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

SCOTUS cannot grant rights, they can only recognize the rights that our legal framework has.

Which is what it has been done, recognizing rights that been violated by certain laws through SCOTUS rulings.

our sleight of hand is nonsense.

Roe V Wade is no slight of hand. It's still the law of the land, supposedly.

There are no "reproductive rights".

Yes, there are. And, they can be taken away, like any other right. Tell men seeking vasectomies they don't have any reproductive rights.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
I would submit in all other medical subjects the mayo clinic is acknowledged as scientificly accurate.
I would accept their positions as accurate.

And yes, the argument used to enact roe v wade was a boondoggle, and will be exposed so by advancing science.
Medical treatments are a right imo.

What do you base this right on? I need to see the legislation that enshrined the protections for medical treatment. I have a federal case to take against UHC for denying treatment to me for 2 years and with holding my rights.

Firstly, EMTALA.
Then I would lean on the pursuit of happiness.

a reply to: LSU2018

I get it, Doc, you're moving the goalposts all the way back to All or Nothing.

Not moving any goal posts. That's the way Roe V Wade is written, and that is the goal post at risk here. Roe V Wade draws that line in the sand at fetal viability. For some arbitrary reason you're saying that you think that a fetal heart beat, not conception, not implantation, should be the line in the sand. You, and those in support of such laws are the ones moving the goal posts, not me.

Roe V Wade isn't broken, and it doesn't need fixing.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Seems it is broken if any abortions are happening in the second and third trimester without severe health risk determined for the mother or child. 12 weeks was where choice was supposed to have ended....but it didn’t did it?

Ultimately it is a pointless argument, really. Because the conversation couldn’t happen if you had been aborted way back when, could it? Which is kinda the pro-life point...speaking for those that cannot.

But don’t get me wrong. The loons that hang out at abortion clinics always get on my last nerve. Now there is an argument for abortion right there. And did I ever have to deal with them over the years, giving taxpayer paid free rides to abortion clinics along with other medical appointments like methadone clinics.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

It is readily apparent in this discussion that you are not understanding that we have 3 branches of government, and each one does different things. I will reiterate that SCOTUS does not give rights, it only affirms them.

Hey billy bob, we can go “woman hunting” in Texas…we find a girl or woman wanting an abortion, watch for anybody trying to help her…then bam,10,000 dollars could be ours, billy bob…..YEE HAA!!!!!