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

a reply to: Ahabstar
That isn't what roe v wade said.

originally posted by: knoxie

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.

Most people don't know they have clotting disorders until the clot dislodges and goes to the heart brain or lungs.


For those who are wondering, if you get lower leg cramps frequently, those are probably clots.

a reply to: Ahabstar

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?

Roe V Wade allows abortion on demand up to the point of viability, which is typically around 22 weeks. That has been the law since 1973. There was never a 12 week expectation of viability. The Supreme Court's line in the sand has always been fetal viability. Some fetuses will never achieve viability.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I will reiterate that SCOTUS does not give rights, it only affirms them.

And, SCOTUS has affirmed a women's right to accesses contraception and to terminate her pregnancy.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I will reiterate that SCOTUS does not give rights, it only affirms them.

And, SCOTUS has affirmed a women's right to accesses contraception and to terminate her pregnancy.

What God wants counts most.

a reply to: carewemust
But, what does god want?
Seems to me he wants any man who believes his wife was unfaithful and carrying a baby that isn't his to tale het to the priest who will give her a portion that will cause a miscarriage.
God doesn't want any bastards in his kingdom!

Of course, the guy could know full well the baby is his and just doesn't want to be a daddy in which case...
God only wants the men taking advantage of abortion.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I will reiterate that SCOTUS does not give rights, it only affirms them.

And, SCOTUS has affirmed a women's right to accesses contraception and to terminate her pregnancy.

To circle this back to your original comment on this: you blame people "challenging" Roe for folks talking about late term abortion as if it were something to be proud of (go back a couple pages to see your post on this). It is good to see that you can now understand how that terminology is incorrect. The only reason I point that out is for this next point....

...its incorrect because you can only challenge a law. And SCOTUS can only declare it unconstitutional, or affirm it as such. That is it. The "challenge" would be to any new law. And this is just such a new law. SCOTUS, if someone tries this case and it makes it to them, can then rule that its unconstitutional, or they can affirm it.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

..you blame people "challenging" Roe for folks talking about late term abortion

This has nothing to do with late term abortions, and does nothing to stop them. This is a ban on abortion after 6 weeks, really, super early.

I'm blaming this law, and every other law and attempt to legislate laws that chip away at Roe V Wade and tries to separate women from their autonomy, and their right to make their own reproductive choices, on Politicians that cater to pro-life right wing religious extremists, by throwing red meat and $10,000 prizes for harassing anyone who may have helped a woman seeking an abortion.

You better get a vaccination so you do not infect me but don't tell me what I can do with my body.....

I hope the GOP continues this antichoice scenario. It's always worked in the past.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I will reiterate that SCOTUS does not give rights, it only affirms them.

And, SCOTUS has affirmed a women's right to accesses contraception and to terminate her pregnancy.

What God wants counts most.

Under HIS eye. May the Lord open. Blessed be the fruit.

a reply to: matafuchs

Mandated vaccines have been around a long time. You had to get a bunch of them to get into school.
Of, course, there is exemptions for various reasons including religious reasons...
The exemptions are lacking in this law.

originally posted by: olaru12
I hope the GOP continues this antichoice scenario. It's always worked in the past.

Democrats look around the Thanksgiving table and think to themselves who they wish in the family was never born.

originally posted by: matafuchs
You better get a vaccination so you do not infect me but don't tell me what I can do with my body.....

There are low iq people out there who still think it only involves a woman and her body.

How long is a trimester? 12 weeks?

First trimester was open.
Second until viability unless health of mother or child
Third health of mother or child

And now is seems to be up to 12 weeks after birth.

a reply to: Ahabstar
Nope, first trimester, available without any govt interference. Second trimester, govt can make laws that ensures the process is safe for t hug e mother.
Third trimester ( changed by planned parenthood ruling to the point where it feasible to believe that a fetus can survive outside the womb with medical intervention), the govt then has a interest in the preservation of the fetal life and can prevent women from an abortion. But, any time through the pregnancy, an abortion must be allowed if the mother's health or life is at risk (roe). I think the exception for fetal health and rape or incest came later.
No fertilized egg can survive outside of the womb. No 12 week fetus can. Which in this case is what fetal viability means. The only other meaning would be weather or not it was so badly deformed it wouldn't survive outside the womb no matter how long the woman was to carry it.

a reply to: olaru12

But is it just the GOP or are they also forced to also represent all the illegals who really do not condone abortion at all? I mean, you think I’ve got a hard stance about it...

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: dandandat2

your wife is the one who lost out on so much work and visibility when having the baby, your wife is the one who will be expected to sack off work whenever the kid is ill, or to not work an extra few hours because the kid needs picking up from somewhere or dropping off somewhere.

Lets be real here, the mum does 99 per cent of everything the child needs, even when married to someone.

What happens when you split up? Mum will sacrifice the rest of her professional life to raise the kid, while dad will moan to his mates over a beer down the pub about how much he is paying.

There is no equivalence.

You are a dad, you get divorced and walk away from your responsibilities, people will nod and figure you are a deadbeat dad, but not give it much thought.

You are a mum who does the same, everyone clutches their pearls and wonders what sort of monster she must be.

Different expectations on mums and dads.

Where do you live the 1950s?

Canada's conservative party is starting to back off abortion.

More forward thinking.

And why should governments be involved in this debate anyway.

Bad form, Texas. You dont want to find any middle ground then don't expect any.

I just heard that Biden should federally deputize all doctors and nursing staff that work in the clinics. Remember, you can’t sue a federal officer for a state law that is legal countrywide