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

originally posted by: dawnstar
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!

Yep
It sets actual federal guidelines as to what is a person and what isn't.
Interestingly the Texas bill used a similar guideline.

Science perhaps?

originally posted by: shooterbrody

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.

To engage this that particular debate is a boondoogle, as neither party can express an evidence that isn't refuted easily with other evidence. And to be honest, is "when does its life start" really have relevance to the claim they make of abortion being a right? No where in the constitution does it express it as a right. No where in nature is abortion among primates a normal and natural thing that an animal can choose to undergo. What nature DOES indicate is that none of us have a right to be omitted from biological processes.

Abortion is not a right. Its not based in natural law, and no legislation has been enacted enshrining it as a right. Its only a "right" because it was legislated from the bench due to there being nothing in law that allowed government to prevent it. That logic follows in many other areas, including masks and such.

a reply to: shooterbrody
Because the state of texas has sanctioned thousands of know nothing loons across the country to decide for themselves what a medical emergency is and sue anyone who may have been involved in terminating the pregnancy.

originally posted by: knoxie
Are all you against abortion gonna be lining up to adopt? There will be a lot more severely handicapped children as well.

The thought of an unwanted child is about the saddest thing in the world to me. This disgusts me to no end..

That's the lamest excuse of all concerning abortion arguments.

Animals in the wild kill their litters, I expect human beings to be a little more civilized when it concerns their own child.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

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.

And you still haven't. Nobody is advocating for abortion on demand after a fetus has achieved viability. That's an erroneous assertion. You need to stop reading pro-life extremist web sites that need to lie to you to arouse your hyperbolic ire.

originally posted by: DashVol
This is expect outcome in a society that (1) forbids bodily autonomy and (2) has erased all of women's rights at a federal level by replacing the reality of biological sex with the religious belief of "gender identity". This is the most predictable result of the intersections of extreme Left AND Right Wing misogyny.

Crazy that I only see the anti-lifers bringing up religion in this thread.

a reply to: shooterbrody

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

Who is going to stop a some vigilante who doesn't believe it was REALLY a medical emergency from suing anyone involved? The person being accused and being civilly sued has to prove their innocence, regardless.

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.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: shooterbrody
Because the state of texas has sanctioned thousands of know nothing loons across the country to decide for themselves what a medical emergency is and sue anyone who may have been involved in terminating the pregnancy.

Did they previously not have the ability to file a civil suit?
Or are all civil suits now provided with standing in Texas?
Who would have access to others medical records?

Hmmm....

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

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.

I am as unreligious as you will find. I oppose abortion on ethical grounds, and believe that not only is it murder...the claim of "rights" has zero basis in anything beyond someone laying claim and no one really challenging it.

Blaming religion just is their excuse and they're the only ones bringing it up. The civilized human side of me, like you, says this is all about ethics and responsibility for your own actions. The religious side of me says that all who abort their children for no other reason than not wanting an unwanted burden, and doctors who abort them, will be dealt with after their life on Earth expires.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: shooterbrody

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

Who is going to stop a some vigilante who doesn't believe it was REALLY a medical emergency from suing anyone involved? The person being accused and being civilly sued has to prove their innocence, regardless.

Who stopped someone yesterday from filing a civil lawsuit?
How would I be able to find out your private medical information?
Civil suits are still innocent until PROVEN guilty, tho less than the criminal standard.

originally posted by: knoxie

originally posted by: loam

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
However, since the overreach is being done in favor of a cause you claim to champion you'll happily goose step down the street.

Yup.

The no compromise ethos of the left has finally pushed many people over the edge.

Congratulations.

Puss response.

Little self awareness, huh?

a reply to: shooterbrody
If it is born, it is a person regardless of weather it came into the world through natural birth or abortion. The law demands that the aborted baby's medical treatment is of the same standard as any other baby if the abortion happens to produce a living baby.
At six weeks old, miscarriages occur no one will ever know about. The women didn't know she was pregnant, women don't get in the habit of carefully inspecting the bloody mess.
That law is talking about living breathing babies, not a ceular mass that is practically undetectable to the naked eye!
A 6 week fetus is not viable... it isn't really fetus yet..

originally posted by: SprocketUK
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?

No, but we did everything responsibly so I have every right to push those same responsibilities on everyone else who does or doesn't want a child. We didn't wait for marriage, but we used protection and knew the consequences of what might happen and what our lives would be like if she ended up pregnant, and aborting the child was never even close to an option.

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.

Well alrighty then! If you really believed what you just wrote then there's absolutely NO WAY you'd be a left winger. And don't try to tell me you're not.

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.

Thank you, Science Dr. Sookie. I'll never question it again.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: shooterbrody
If it is born, it is a person regardless of weather it came into the world through natural birth or abortion. The law demands that the aborted baby's medical treatment is of the same standard as any other baby if the abortion happens to produce a living baby.
At six weeks old, miscarriages occur no one will ever know about. The women didn't know she was pregnant, women don't get in the habit of carefully inspecting the bloody mess.
That law is talking about living breathing babies, not a ceular mass that is practically undetectable to the naked eye!
A 6 week fetus is not viable... it isn't really fetus yet..

Interesting that the Texas law uses the heartbeat, one of the qualifying events of the federal law, as the benchmark.
Imo the federal law DEFINES what is a person.
Texas using that standard is clever imo.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Ill ignore the ad hom, insinuating i get information from right leaning or whackjob sites. You and I both know this is not true, and you only said that because you had nothing better to say in response to my post. Which is itself a damning critique of your position. But since you brought it up....NY Times is now a "pro life extremist web site".

www.nytimes.com...

The most striking change, beyond individual policies, is how unapologetic candidates’ tone on abortion rights has become.

Advocates have traditionally said they support the right to choose abortion, not abortion itself, and Democrats have said it should be “safe, legal and rare.” Public debate has commonly centered on procedures after 20 weeks’ gestation, which account for less than 1.5 percent of abortions. The discussion has often been on opponents’ terms.

Now, almost every candidate says the next president should actively reframe the debate. Their language focuses on health care, bodily autonomy and, at times, even the idea of abortion as a positive force enabling women to control their lives and increase their economic security.

“Abortion is health care, and health care is a human right,” Elizabeth Warren wrote in her survey response. In the last debate, she argued that abortion rights were “also economic rights.”

Only Tulsi Gabbard, Joe Sestak and Marianne Williamson now say abortion should be “safe, legal and rare” — a phrase, popularized by President Bill Clinton and repeated by Hillary Clinton, that reflected a search for common ground with people not fully supportive of abortion rights.

The rest of the 2020 candidates sidestepped or rejected the “rare” part. Bernie Sanders, for instance, wrote, “Abortion should be safe, legal and accessible to every person who chooses it.”

a reply to: shooterbrody
The idea that the person suing needed standing flew out the window.
And. No. I don't believe they could have sued someone for helping someone obtain an abortion before this.
And, as far as proof..
Here is the picture of her walking into the hospital or clinic last thursday... clearly pregnant. And, here is a picture of her walking out, not pregnant. No baby, no birth certificate filed.
The person being sued isnt rich, she now has the option of obtaining legal counsel or putting her family on an extreme diet.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
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.

You mean like the private baker who didn't bake a gay themed cake, although he told the couple that he'd bake a normal cake for them? Sucks doesn't it?