A Texas judge grants a pregnant woman permission to get an abortion despite the state’s ban

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Annee

A potential human is NOT a human.

Personally, I think the operative word is "being". All human cells are alive, but not all human cells are created equally. What is the difference between "human' and "human being". When does "human" equal "being".

I think that implies the question that should be asked is actually: When is a "spirit" or "soul" imbued into the organized cell structure of the human body?" Some say conception, some say the first breath, some say, "there's no such thing as a human soul".

At any rate, spiritual embodiment is not a question for the courts. Like religion, it's a private matter. The State can't impose religious morals on The People through laws. That's what the 1st Amendment says.

That's my 2 cents....FWIW

Yes, thank you -- that is perfect.

Back reading -- catching up -- sick kid.

originally posted by: Vermilion
a reply to: tanstaafl
There’s been an incredible amount of misinformation/lack of information in this thread. Whether due to high emotions or lack of due diligence is up for debate.
What is not up for debate is the facts in this matter.
Here they are….

Thank you for injecting a qhole lot of factual sanity into this thread.

Your taking the time to actual read the court focuments definitely sheds new light on why the courts decided the way they did.

Her Doctor simply did not believe her life was in danger. Period.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

Her Doctor simply did not believe her life was in danger. Period.

That is not how I'm reading it.

That is incomplete partial selectiveness.

Leaving out the additional info Sookiechacha provided.

"Right. It's all explained in the orginal pleading, why the doctor wouldn't use the phrase "reasonable medical judgment", because it's a trigger trap that provides no protection for the physician, but leaned on the legal term "Good Faith" as federal law requires."

a reply to: tanstaafl

Her Doctor simply did not believe her life was in danger.

Cox's pleading never claimed that her life was in imminent danger. That wasn't the issue. It was her health and her ability to give birth in the future, that was the issue.

originally posted by: Annee
A potential human is NOT a human.

But Annee, does it not know it is or will be a human, if not at some conscience level, a biological level? Isn't what it is, in the DNA? (Human)

It's "in the brain" so to speak?

If kids can just know their gender at tender ages and be put on puberty blockers, how is aborting one in utero at any stage not murder?

Apples to oranges, maybe. But I think I'm making a good point. I think.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
The doctor said she needed it then, to save her reproductive ability.

So if I am understanding this, having a child would destroy her reproductive ability, so she had an abortion? So that she could concieve again..and then what? Abort another one...or?

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
The doctor said she needed it then, to save her reproductive ability.

So if I am understanding this, having a child would destroy her reproductive ability, so she had an abortion? So that she could concieve again..and then what? Abort another one...or?

Yeah, what's wrong with that?

The current fetus is not viable.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

originally posted by: Annee
A potential human is NOT a human.

But Annee, does it not know it is or will be a human, if not at some conscience level, a biological level? Isn't what it is, in the DNA? (Human)

It's "in the brain" so to speak?

If kids can just know their gender at tender ages and be put on puberty blockers, how is aborting one in utero at any stage not murder?

Apples to oranges, maybe. But I think I'm making a good point. I think.

This has nothing to do with transgenders.

Again, any mammal can procreate. It's a biological function. It's really not that special.

Sanctity of child is after birth when they are LIVING. I support LIVING CHILDREN.

Before potential being is viable outside the womb -- it is just a potential being.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Ah Geez...Sigh,

Kate Cox, a married, mother of two was happily pregnant with her 3rd child. Unfortunately, Ms Cox and her family got the bad news that the fetus had a fatal fetal anomaly. Since she had had two previous pregnancies that required a C-Sections, Ms Cox's body only had 1 more C-Section in it, and she didn't want to waste her last C-Section and her last opportunity for a child, on non-viable fetus that was going to die.

If she could have had access to a timely vaginal abortion, her ability to have another baby would remain intact. She wanted the abortion before she went into labor and had to have the last C-Section her body could handle or she contracted sepsis, for example. from a distressed or dead fetus.

TLDR? She can only have one more baby. This one is DOA, with a fatal fetal anomaly. Texas won't let her have an abortion because the fetus still has a heartbeat, and she isn't dying, She's just looking at losing her reproductive ability.

Capice?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl

Her Doctor simply did not believe her life was in danger.

Cox's pleading never claimed that her life was in imminent danger. That wasn't the issue. It was her health and her ability to give birth in the future, that was the issue.

From page 2 of Kate’s petition..
“continuing the pregnancy puts her at high risk for severe complications threatening her life”

And from page 3 of Kate’s petition..
“to seek a temporary restraining order authorizing her physician to provide her with the abortion she needs to preserve her life”

a reply to: Annee

Children are alive in the womb, haven't you ever felt one kick?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I read the whole thing, no need for a tl;dr.

While I came off sarcastic, I also didn't know the deets.

So was legit question. Thanks for filling me in.

It doesn't seem like a pleasant decision to face or go through.

originally posted by: Annee
This has nothing to do with transgenders.

No, it doesn't. I brought it up though, to illustrate why I find your position not in alignment with what I would have thought it was, based on arguments you've made regarding children in the past (on that other subject). Also based on how important children and their futures are to you.

So I just found it odd that you seem (and I could be mistaken - have not read whole thread) to think they aren't humans until they've crossed a vaginal threshold.

That is all. Carry on.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

originally posted by: Annee
This has nothing to do with transgenders.

No, it doesn't. I brought it up though, to illustrate why I find your position not in alignment with what I would have thought it was, based on arguments you've made regarding children in the past (on that other subject). Also based on how important children and their futures are to you.

So I just found it odd that you seem (and I could be mistaken - have not read whole thread) to think they aren't humans until they've crossed a vaginal threshold.

That is all. Carry on.

Viable outside the womb.

It’s a raw deal for sure.
You’ve got poor Kate and her husband who just want another baby.
An activist doctor, she only made matters worse.
A activist judge, she ‘mistakingly’ granted the abortion.
An activist lawyer, she tried to game the law.
She’s a horrible lawyer btw, that petition she wrote was just an appeal to emotion. Not a good legal strategy.
And finally that poor baby, who is the ultimate victim here because he/she has probably been killed by now.

originally posted by: Vermilion

It’s a raw deal for sure.
You’ve got poor Kate and her husband who just want another baby.
An activist doctor, she only made matters worse.
A activist judge, she ‘mistakingly’ granted the abortion.
An activist lawyer, she tried to game the law.
She’s a horrible lawyer btw, that petition she wrote was just an appeal to emotion. Not a good legal strategy.
And finally that poor baby, who is the ultimate victim here because he/she has probably been killed by now.

It’s not a baby.

And it was already not viable.

a reply to: Annee

I guess I'd be curious as to what qualifies as viable or not.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: Annee

I guess I'd be curious as to what qualifies as viable or not.

My oldest grandson was a 6 month baby weighing 3 pounds. And spent 3 months in ICU.

With medical assistance he was viable outside the womb.

a reply to: Annee

Glad he made it through okay.

I think I get you now.

I thought you had been implying babies aren't humans unless they've been born.

But I think now your position is, it's a clump of cells until x,y,z criteria have been met.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: Annee

Glad he made it through okay.

I think I get you now.

I thought you had been implying babies aren't humans unless they've been born.

But I think now your position is, it's a clump of cells until x,y,z criteria have been met.

My daughter had a 24 hour window to keep or abort. He had to be sewn in.

She chose to keep. He started his life being wanted.