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

a reply to: LSU2018

Good for you, you two are not most of the world though, or do you think you are?
Do you really believe that you are the same as everybody else?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Plus, this Texas law doesn't do anything to change that. It just makes it harder for the woman who body is succumbing to septic shock, because her non-viable diseased 8 month old fetus is in distress, because of nosy, ignorant religious nut cases certain the woman is selfishly murdering her baby.

So that is complete hyped up bs and is typical.
There are exceptions for medical emergencies in the law.

Not even a nice try.

originally posted by: bigsnowman

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: CptGreenTea

That's the thing, women trying to end pregnancy has been around for thousands of years in some form. We will now just have back alley docs in Texas and women dying or unable to ever have children from botched procedures. I don't think I ever took a pregnancy test until 6 weeks as my cycle was never regular. Although I never had one, I support a women's right to choose.

So.. are men now going to have to start paying child support at 6 weeks?

They took a risk having unprotected sex, a back alley botch is another risk they'll have to take if they don't want the burden they created themselves.

Hey, no, it isn't a risk they'll have to take because abortion is legal, and always will be.

I'm guessing you feel the same about unvaccinated COVID patients, though? Send 'em to the back alley with a rusty needle and some ivermectin? Risk they have to take, right?

Unvaccinated coronavirus patients don't have to go to a back alley for a rusty shot of Ivermectin. They can buy it at any feed store (like you can buy a Plan B pill at any gas station) and do it themselves.

Do better.

originally posted by: bigsnowman

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: sunkuong
a reply to: Xtrozero

Shouldn't it be that way?

2021 and we still want someone to dictate what other people can and cant do

Is it dictating to tell someone they can't murder a child?

What the hell has this country come to. Damn.I can't believe we're arguing over the right to kill a frickin child.

it seems the basis of your argument lies in confusing a fetus with a child. they are two different things

This law is starts when the heartbeat begins which is, on average, 6 weeks. Now do you get it?

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: bigsnowman
Religion wasn't a factor in Roe v Wade but it is a MAJOR factor in the attempts to overturn it.

One has to be religious to oppose abortion?
Really?

Nope. Don't believe in abortion, don't have one. Force your opposition onto others because of your deeply held beliefs, then it becomes religious extremism.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: shooterbrody

Show me where in the law.

en.wikipedia.org...

As used in this section, the term ``born alive´´, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.


Or google it yourself.

a reply to: dawnstar

Does this law not give rights to a woman, who will die due to the birth of her child, to get an abortion?

a reply to: LSU2018

This law is starts when the heartbeat begins which is, on average, 6 weeks. Now do you get it?

There is no heart at 6 weeks. Just an electrical impulse.

a reply to: LSU2018

Does this law not give rights to a woman, who will die due to the birth of her child, to get an abortion?

It doesn't protect the doctors, the clinic's employees, or anyone who might have counseled her, or helped her, financially or through ride sharing, shelter, etc., from being sued into oblivion.

a reply to: shooterbrody
So, just what constitutes a medical emergency?
How clearly understood by the masses it it? I doubt if it is that clear since there are hospitals in this country that will let the condition progress to the point where sepsis is over running the women's body before they intervene to terminate the doomed pregnancy.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: bigsnowman
Religion wasn't a factor in Roe v Wade but it is a MAJOR factor in the attempts to overturn it.

One has to be religious to oppose abortion?
Really?

Nope. Don't believe in abortion, don't have one. Force your opposition onto others because of your deeply held beliefs, then it becomes religious extremism.

Hmmm.....
Kind of like the belief an experimental shot will cure you?
That brand of extremism?
Oh wait now you need a booster.....
That kind of "science"?

Are you discouraged because medical science has advanced since 1970?
Its "science", right?

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: bigsnowman

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: sunkuong
a reply to: Xtrozero

Shouldn't it be that way?

2021 and we still want someone to dictate what other people can and cant do

Is it dictating to tell someone they can't murder a child?

What the hell has this country come to. Damn.I can't believe we're arguing over the right to kill a frickin child.

it seems the basis of your argument lies in confusing a fetus with a child. they are two different things

This law is starts when the heartbeat begins which is, on average, 6 weeks. Now do you get it?

Yeah they got backdoored on that one without realizing it.
Science will kick their ass.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: shooterbrody
So, just what constitutes a medical emergency?
How clearly understood by the masses it it? I doubt if it is that clear since there are hospitals in this country that will let the condition progress to the point where sepsis is over running the women's body before they intervene to terminate the doomed pregnancy.

What your physician says is a medical emergency?
Why should what anyone else thinks of such matter?
NO ONE should get between you and your dr.
Please link a case of this sepsis you referenced.
TIA

a reply to: shooterbrody

So that is complete hyped up bs and is typical.
There are exceptions for medical emergencies in the law.

Anyone associated with the event can still be sued, and then be subject to depositions, discovery, etc., that will require an attorney to negotiate. Even if the case is dropped, or a judge/jury rules it was a legal and protected event, they cannot recover the legal fees they've amassed to defend their legal actions.

originally posted by: themessengernevermatters

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: CptGreenTea

That's the thing, women trying to end pregnancy has been around for thousands of years in some form. We will now just have back alley docs in Texas and women dying or unable to ever have children from botched procedures. I don't think I ever took a pregnancy test until 6 weeks as my cycle was never regular. Although I never had one, I support a women's right to choose.

So.. are men now going to have to start paying child support at 6 weeks?

They took a risk having unprotected sex, a back alley botch is another risk they'll have to take if they don't want the burden they created themselves.

And the baby will still be dead, maybe the mother, maybe not. It really doesn't accomplish what you would like.

Well, I don't stand outside of abortion clinics screaming at women and calling them murderers as they walk in and out. I'm on this thread giving my opinion on how I feel. I don't go to anti-abortion rallies and hold up signs and scream. I'm just one person giving my personal opinion.

Here's my opinion... If abortion is illegal and a man and woman take the risk of having sex and not using protection, she gets pregnant and doesn't want the child, she still has the option to go in under the radar for an abortion. I do NOT support abortion, but I'm not going to get in anyone's face about it. If they choose to go under the radar to have the abortion performed then they're going to have to take the risk.

I couldn't afford obamacare so I had to go find a doctor that accepted uninsured patients and he had a deal worked out with certain pharmacies that would give prescription pills at a huge discounted price. You gotta do what you gotta do and if abortion is illegal and you know someone who can likely perform one, and you want it bad enough, then you'll do what you gotta do.

a reply to: LSU2018
You are talking about the born alive bill.
BORN ALIVE!!
A six week fetus isn't born, it is miscarried and there is no amount of medical care that could keep it alive!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: LSU2018

This law is starts when the heartbeat begins which is, on average, 6 weeks. Now do you get it?

There is no heart at 6 weeks. Just an electrical impulse.

Wow
The mayo clinic disagrees.
They say the heart forms in week 5, and the heartbeat starts a week 6.
Science wins again.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Well, this law puts health insurers who cover abortion in vigilantes' crosshairs too.

No. Please. Don't tell me insurers are a target for hostility.

Honestly, im the last person who will feel sorry for a health insurance company. UHC's refusal to authorize a standard treatement for me for 2 years almost killed me on multiple occasions. Burn the whole thing down.

That has been the case since Roe V Wade became the law of the land. Plus, this Texas law doesn't do anything to change that. It just makes it harder for the woman who body is succumbing to septic shock, because her non-viable diseased 8 month old fetus is in distress, because of nosy, ignorant, religious nut cases, certain the woman is selfishly murdering her baby.

Prior to about 2 years ago, you never had people sitting in public office campaigning for re-election on the "right" to a no questions asked abortion for a baby that is due to be born tomorrow. Sounds to me like you are complaining about a perception issue which is created by the most vile in your political camp saying the most vile things simply to shock their political opponents. This is the cost of political trollery.

Just like Trump being elected was the response to the enormous sweeping changes Obama made, this law is a response as well. Politics is all about action/reaction. When you wage culture war, people begin trying to protect that culture. I could go on...but i think you get what I am saying.

Its all a response. When you are in a political ideology that self describes as "Progressive" you have to understand that not everyone agrees with what you are calling "progress", and its a very fair question to ask "Where is this progressing to?".

But please, continue insulting people who follow religious conviction. Im sure that will change their minds.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: shooterbrody

So that is complete hyped up bs and is typical.
There are exceptions for medical emergencies in the law.

Anyone associated with the event can still be sued, and then be subject to depositions, discovery, etc., that will require an attorney to negotiate. Even if the case is dropped, or a judge/jury rules it was a legal and protected event, they cannot recover the legal fees they've amassed to defend their legal actions.

No
You mispoke and stated there are no exceptions for medical emergencies, and there clearly is in the bill.

Or did you not mispeak?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: loam

Please cite another such law, a blue state's law, if you have one, that makes something legal effectively illegal, but offers no state law enforcement authority and no state authority to prosecute, but authorizes private citizens, who otherwise have no legal standing, to personally hunt down and prosecute anyone who they think might have helped someone do something that's constitutionally protected.

Burning a bLM flag.

Enrique Tarrio sentenced for burning stolen black Lives Matter flag

But hey, at least you can still steal an American Flag and burn it without consequence, am I right?

Again. This was a legalistic crime that was enforced and prosecuted by state actors.

Got it. So you can burn down city blocks, loot and rob every store in the process, burn every American flag you see, and go home that night with no consequences to yourself, while costing billions in damage to everyone else, but you can't burn a flag belonging to a domestic terror group.

Great priorities you have there.