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

originally posted by: quintessentone

There is never any compromise in this subject matter; there can never be.

Sookie tends to go down strange paths, and I just do not want to play. This is why I suggested a while back we need a fed-level fix that is moderate on both ends and call it good. In 50 years it will not matter anyway as the Government will be screaming for women to have kids and birth control will be most likely 100%. It's a short-lived scenario...

originally posted by: quintessentone

Yes, I am grateful to be alive but it's not my call nor your call nor the call of some self-righteous agenda-driven old white Christian guy to decide what freedoms can be taken away from a woman.

So says you...

That's the point there that cannot be solved. Some feel the freedom of two lives matters, not just one. Above os your viewpoint that you suggest is right over all others. Some people have a viewpoint that they should be able to kill anyone who stands in their way of a better life, is that also right over all others?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: quintessentone

Yes, I am grateful to be alive but it's not my call nor your call nor the call of some self-righteous agenda-driven old white Christian guy to decide what freedoms can be taken away from a woman.

So says you...

That's the point there that cannot be solved. Some feel the freedom of two lives matters, not just one. Above os your viewpoint that you suggest is right over all others. Some people have a viewpoint that they should be able to kill anyone who stands in their way of a better life, is that also right over all others?

Woman's choice.

Nothing else.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I haven't suggested a single thing, maybe try the 14th amendment.

What does the 14th Amendment have to do with self-defense?

You don't think a woman has a right to self-defense from a pregnancy threatening her life. You've said the very concept is stupid. Ergo, Texas law must be super generous and charitable, that it does allow abortion to save the life of a woman.

So somehow I'm all this just because I don't agree with your argument..

It's not my argument, it's the belief that you hold, that women don't have a right to self-defense against a pregnancy threatening their life, let alone their health. It couldn't be clearer.

originally posted by: Annee

Woman's choice.

Nothing else.

I'll see your women's choice with all lives matter...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: quintessentone

Yes, I am grateful to be alive but it's not my call nor your call nor the call of some self-righteous agenda-driven old white Christian guy to decide what freedoms can be taken away from a woman.

So says you...

That's the point there that cannot be solved. Some feel the freedom of two lives matters, not just one. Above os your viewpoint that you suggest is right over all others. Some people have a viewpoint that they should be able to kill anyone who stands in their way of a better life, is that also right over all others?

If that better life involves their mental health or bodily health, then I think so. Otherwise it will cause undue harm to the person involved, would it not?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: quintessentone

There is never any compromise in this subject matter; there can never be.

Sookie tends to go down strange paths, and I just do not want to play. This is why I suggested a while back we need a fed-level fix that is moderate on both ends and call it good. In 50 years it will not matter anyway as the Government will be screaming for women to have kids and birth control will be most likely 100%. It's a short-lived scenario...

If the government wants women to have children then it should be at their expense - make women's and children's lives easier not push them into poverty and hardship. The government does not care about the welfare of women and children after the fact.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Annee

Woman's choice.

Nothing else.

I'll see your women's choice with all lives matter...

You keep trying to pick and choose -- where to draw the line.

I drew it. Women's Choice -- end of story.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

It's not my argument, it's the belief that you hold, that women don't have a right to self-defense against a pregnancy threatening their life, let alone their health. It couldn't be clearer.

So I have no insurance and I need very expensive meds, do I say the 2nd gives me the right to shoot the guy to get my meds? I need the meds or I die so it is just self-defense.

For me, abortion is a sliding line... At first, it is 100% the woman's choice, but the longer it goes on that choice starts to slide away from the mother to include the unborn child.

It's not perfect as none of any of this is, but it is how I see it. As that line slides, let's say one minute from birth there is a chance the mother dies, what is the call? For me, there reaches a point where both the child's and mother's rights are equal.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Annee

Woman's choice.

Nothing else.

I'll see your women's choice with all lives matter...

While that is a commendable quote, it is not practical in many women's lives when it comes down to mental and bodily health concerns.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: quintessentone

There is never any compromise in this subject matter; there can never be.

Sookie tends to go down strange paths, and I just do not want to play. This is why I suggested a while back we need a fed-level fix that is moderate on both ends and call it good. In 50 years it will not matter anyway as the Government will be screaming for women to have kids and birth control will be most likely 100%. It's a short-lived scenario...

If the government wants women to have children then it should be at their expense - make women's and children's lives easier not push them into poverty and hardship. The government does not care about the welfare of women and children after the fact.

Or maybe the government can find another way to function.

I'm over capitalism.

originally posted by: Annee

I drew it. Women's Choice -- end of story.

Yes, we know that is your opinion as you have said it about a dozen times.

originally posted by: quintessentone
Otherwise it will cause undue harm to the person involved, would it not?

Undue harm for whom?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Annee

How many pregnancies do you think are planned?

I support LIVING CHILDREN -- not the unwanted.

Do you realize if you let unwanted children live then they are living children too...

Let's have a "Pot Luck" kid then give it away -- just to say we had it.

Would there be any 'luck' in the foster system as it stands now?

John Lennon
Eddie Murphy
Marilyn Monroe
Simone Biles
Steve Jobs
Tiffany Haddish
Cher
Coco Chanel
Anita Baker
Colin Kaepernick
James Dean
Willie Nelson
Seal
Faith Hill
All foster care kids.

Do you honestly think any of these people would be missed if they'd never been born?

Ask their children who they didn’t abort.
You’ll be surprised.

originally posted by: quintessentone

If the government wants women to have children then it should be at their expense - make women's and children's lives easier not push them into poverty and hardship. The government does not care about the welfare of women and children after the fact.

It will get to that. As the population collapses in the West there will be big incentives to have kids. In places like China, they will just push 2+ rules that all women for the greatness of their country will have 2+ kids otherwise one will be socially stigmatized and re-educated.

BTW poverty and hardship are a hell of a lot better than death.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

It's not my argument, it's the belief that you hold, that women don't have a right to self-defense against a pregnancy threatening their life, let alone their health. It couldn't be clearer.

So I have no insurance and I need very expensive meds, do I say the 2nd gives me the right to shoot the guy to get my meds? I need the meds or I die so it is just self-defense.

For me, abortion is a sliding line... At first, it is 100% the woman's choice, but the longer it goes on that choice starts to slide away from the mother to include the unborn child.

It's not perfect as none of any of this is, but it is how I see it. As that line slides, let's say one minute from birth there is a chance the mother dies, what is the call? For me, there reaches a point where both the child's and mother's rights are equal.

Who or what is taking your freedom of life and health away? That would be the greed of the pharma company and the government being complicit in you not being able to afford the drugs to keep you alive.

What are your options?

There are drugmakers' patient-assistant programs that assist with co-paying for expensive drugs and/or treatments.

You also have the freedom to start a go fund me page for assistance.

Your family members can get another part-time job to help you out.

What freedom does the woman have other than abortion if that pregnancy will cause her undue harm?

originally posted by: Annee

I'm over capitalism.

There is better, do tell....

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: quintessentone

There is never any compromise in this subject matter; there can never be.

Sookie tends to go down strange paths, and I just do not want to play. This is why I suggested a while back we need a fed-level fix that is moderate on both ends and call it good. In 50 years it will not matter anyway as the Government will be screaming for women to have kids and birth control will be most likely 100%. It's a short-lived scenario...

If the government wants women to have children then it should be at their expense - make women's and children's lives easier not push them into poverty and hardship. The government does not care about the welfare of women and children after the fact.

Or maybe the government can find another way to function.

I'm over capitalism.

Well if the declining birth rates are any indication, the government certainly needs to head on a different tack, that's for sure.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: quintessentone
Otherwise it will cause undue harm to the person involved, would it not?

Undue harm for whom?

For the woman, the woman's children and family by perhaps pushing them further into poverty, and poverty can also cause mental and bodily harms.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: quintessentone

If the government wants women to have children then it should be at their expense - make women's and children's lives easier not push them into poverty and hardship. The government does not care about the welfare of women and children after the fact.

It will get to that. As the population collapses in the West there will be big incentives to have kids. In places like China, they will just push 2+ rules that all women for the greatness of their country will have 2+ kids otherwise one will be socially stigmatized and re-educated.

BTW poverty and hardship are a hell of a lot better than death.

Not really, poverty can cause a whole host of mental, health, and restrict opportunities in life. That is undue harm.

But, yes, let government make it desirable to have children or more children without undue harm.