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

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Kate Cox was at 20 weeks when she sued the State of Texas for an abortion. What about people like Kate with a national 15 week abortion ban in place?

What about what? I have gave my opinion on this why are you all throwing what ifs at me.

This line of thinking is fallacious dog whistling, and maybe it's a line those men use on women, "Come on baby, you can just get an abortion!".

Don't really care... I have seen where abortions were the first choice pushed by the clinics for profit.

Abortions aren't merely an inconvenient trade-off between spontaneous sex and contraception for women. Ask anyone who's had one. And, period panic is a real thing that even women regularly using contractions experience.

I know plenty who have had them, 2 ,3 etc.

Don't like it, move to another state. Same with smoking pot, if you like it then don't live where it is illegal. All I said was NM is a day drive, set up an appointment and get it done.

Not sure what a few of you want from me here other than to scream OMG Texas is so horrible. Just like anything else that is a challenge in one's life... deal with it and move on.

originally posted by: frogs453

You seem to keep making assumptions that these are unwanted pregnancies. They are wanted. They also want another child after this. However, the state wants them to possibly have no chance at further reproduction or even death of the mother in favor of the non viable fetus.

What is it that you want from me here? Go vote the people who created these laws out and put in others to change it.

a reply to: Xtrozero

What about what? I have gave my opinion on this why are you all throwing what ifs at me.

It's a not "what if". This is a real case, right now.

Your opinion does nothing to address the problem at hand. It's just empty rhetoric based on some arbitrary time frame. Why even post it?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha


Your opinion does nothing to address the problem at hand. It's just empty rhetoric based on some arbitrary time frame. Why even post it?

I said I'm against 100% illegal abortion, and more open to the 15-week middle ground. I can't change the laws there, can you? Since the laws are in place people need to manage their life within what works for them.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I said I'm against 100% illegal abortion

Why is this an illegal abortion?

and more open to the 15-week middle ground.

That's a cop-out that doesn't address the problem at hand.

Any gestational age ban is going to see fetuses with fatal anomalies and woman whose health and lives are at risk, should they not have access to a timely abortion. All abortion bans are the problem here. In this case the arbitrary ban line is a pseudo heartbeat. The issue isn't the gestational age of the fetus or some arbitrary benchmark, like fetal pain, it's the value of the woman.

In this case. Ken Paxton doesn't think a fatal fetal anomaly or the woman's suffering reaches a proper legal threshold for her to receive medical relief. As a result, at best, she will likely lose her uterus. At worst, contract sepsis and die on the way to the hospital.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
As a result, at best, she will likely lose her uterus. At worst, contract sepsis and die on the way to the hospital.

But that happening is all ok, as long as she does not have a abortion! It really shows how little religious nutters actually care.

originally posted by: Vforvendeta
a reply to: Rosby123

Yes. We must force women to further support the medical, funeral and grief industries and label them monsters if they do not.
BTW do you have children?

Yes I have children and I don't think a woman should go through a pregnancy where the baby will die anyway either before it is born or after.

originally posted by: Rosby123

originally posted by: Vforvendeta
a reply to: Rosby123

Yes. We must force women to further support the medical, funeral and grief industries and label them monsters if they do not.
BTW do you have children?

Yes I have children and I don't think a woman should go through a pregnancy where the baby will die anyway either before it is born or after.

I think the judge who allowed this abortion is a woman (another poster mentioned it) and she applied common sense and a bit of empathy by taking into consideration the fact the fetus will not survive.

originally posted by: bruce88

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
As a result, at best, she will likely lose her uterus. At worst, contract sepsis and die on the way to the hospital.

But that happening is all ok, as long as she does not have a abortion! It really shows how little religious nutters actually care.

We deal with very conservative right wing male christians who believe they have a say on what a woman can or cannot do.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Sookiechacha


Your opinion does nothing to address the problem at hand. It's just empty rhetoric based on some arbitrary time frame. Why even post it?

I said I'm against 100% illegal abortion, and more open to the 15-week middle ground. I can't change the laws there, can you? Since the laws are in place people need to manage their life within what works for them.

That's usually a reasonable position but abortions should happen at a later stage if the circumstances demand it like on this instance.

originally posted by: Jane1B
That's usually a reasonable position but abortions should happen at a later stage if the circumstances demand it like on this instance.

I have no problem with that statement.

I feel that the value of life is being reduced in general. What I'm concerned about is treating abortions as the first choice, the easy way out, or even worse, a money maker for the clinics that sell the fetus and get money from the state, so abortions become a business. At what point do we also say that old people have no more use, are too burdensome, cost money to keep alive... How about crazy homeless people, we can get rid of them too... See my point?

I want women to understand they are killing a human and treat their choice with that in mind. In taking any life a person needs to understand they are killing a human being, and not treat it as some trivial event.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I want women to understand they are killing a human and treat their choice with that in mind. In taking any life a person needs to understand they are killing a human being, and not treat it as some trivial event.

That is a different discussion, but keeps getting brought into this one.

What this woman needs is a medical intervention. She obviously 100% wanted this child and wants more. She is not a baby killer, nor using this as birth control. She 100000% know this is a human and is not treating this in any trivial manner.

a reply to: JAGStorm

What this woman needs....

According to Xtrozero, women need men to instill in them how serious reproduction and pregnancy is, and how valuable life is when their sperm is involved. Otherwise, they wouldn't know and would just be aborting babies, willy-nilly, and have naked pillow fights with each other afterwards! You know how women think, "Birth control is SUCH A BOTHER!"

Good thing we have so many caring men to keep us in our place!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JAGStorm

What this woman needs....

According to Xtrozero, women need men to instill in them how serious reproduction and pregnancy is, and how valuable life is when their sperm is involved. Otherwise, they wouldn't know and would just be aborting babies, willy-nilly, and have naked pillow fights with each other afterwards! You know how women think, "Birth control is SUCH A BOTHER!"

Good thing we have so many caring men to keep us in our place!

What I say is: "If it's not your business, it's not your business".

It just infuriates me that this is still an issue that others think is their business.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
"Birth control is SUCH A BOTHER!"

Good thing we have so many caring men to keep us in our place!

I'm talking about how society as a whole thinks. 900k abortions per year must mean that birth control doesn't work very well...

a reply to: Xtrozero

That sounds like a serious number! Maybe 900,000 men could start taking birth control, you know, to share the responsibility!

Let's say 33% of the population are women of child bearing age. about 111 million women. 111 million times 12 months = 1 billion 332 hundred million, 1,332,000,000 times that birth control did work! (Minus your 900,000, of course)

That sounds like pretty good odds to me!

a reply to: Xtrozero

I'm talking about how society as a whole thinks. 900k abortions per year must mean that birth control doesn't work very well...

Oral birth control works fine. But unrelated infections happen and antibiotics may need to be taken. Woman aren't always told these counteract, and it's not always common knowledge.

Condoms break and all kids are shortsighted at times. Plan B is there at $40 a pop at CVS for anyone, any age OTC. But that window gets missed. Especially by those that still think "pulling out" works.

And with all these preventative methods, and assumed preventative methods, the typical abortion candidate is the all-american college bound girl that screws up with her boyfriend senior year and has to make a choice between "Education" and "Motherhood." For some it's way easier than others.

Of 15-19 year old pregnancies, 29% of them end in legal abortion.. Age 14 and younger, it doubles over 50%.

There's a huge "throw your life away" element to why pregnant women in younger age groups choose to abort. And many times, it's their parental influence that persuades the decision.

Like one of my mother's most memorable quotes when abortion was relevant.

"I will break your arm before I let you throw your life away, I don't do grandchildren."

She got her wish. Never had to be a grandparent.

For all the people that virtue signal all the problems that can arise when a child is born into a less than ideal situation, Im still waiting for an abortion survivor and parent that wishes the abortion was successful. Until then youre point is mute.

originally posted by: navigator70
For all the people that virtue signal all the problems that can arise when a child is born into a less than ideal situation, Im still waiting for an abortion survivor and parent that wishes the abortion was successful. Until then youre point is mute.

Why are you insisting on testimony from an abortion survivor who grow up in less than ideal situations to tell you the benefits that would have resulted if he didn't survive his abortion?

The benefits of abortion are felt by society as a whole; not necessarily to the fetus itself.

Less awanted children puts downward pressure on social programs and less competition for those who were not aborted.

Abortion is a social tool for the benefit of society as a whole.

originally posted by: Dandandat3

originally posted by: navigator70
For all the people that virtue signal all the problems that can arise when a child is born into a less than ideal situation, Im still waiting for an abortion survivor and parent that wishes the abortion was successful. Until then youre point is mute.

Why are you insisting on testimony from an abortion survivor who grow up in less than ideal situations to tell you the benefits that would have resulted if he didn't survive his abortion?

The benefits of abortion are felt by society as a whole; not necessarily to the fetus itself.

Less awanted children puts downward pressure on social programs and less competition for those who were not aborted.

Abortion is a social tool for the benefit of society as a whole.

Thats a logical fallacy. The decision is made by the mother, not society. You also assume all abortion survivors become dependent on society and not productive members of society.