Federal judge rules Tennessee abortion law unconstitutional

[Barnacle]

Very good news.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireS...nessee-abortion-law-unconstitutional-73612232
NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- A federal judge on Wednesday ruled that Tennessee’s 48-hour waiting period law for abortions is unconstitutional because it serves no legitimate purpose while placing a substantial burden on women who seek abortions in Tennessee.
Tennessee’s 2015 law requires women to make two trips to an abortion clinic, first for mandatory counseling and then for the abortion at least 48 hours later.
...

Sounds good; I don't see any legitimate or logical reason for that 2-day wait period.

 

[Fledermaus]

Goodness me.... it certainly isn't reproductive rights...... get it right ....it's infanticide rights, with a get out of jail card curtesy from RBG a bitter and twisted old targer!
Isn't it great how twisting a natural body process.... into a right, to commit a crime.....sorry, your caught with dirty hands! Including the word Taliban.... to denigrate the discussion to something horrible.....!
The Taliban have fought Americans for nearly nineteen years.... the poorest and the richest.... and you lost! But by god, you increased production of heroin from 2% under the Taliban, to 126% of the worlds supply! Aye the Taliban, I.e. Freedom fighters or your terrorists!

Please cite the ruling RBG made.

 

[OceanBlues1]

Good. You have to wonder just how useful that 48 hours would be. I wonder if anyone, after having decided on an abortion - for any reason - had changed their minds. I would be no one.

Agreed. If I'd been forced to wait an extra 48 hours when I knew I wanted an abortion, that wouldn't have changed my mind.

 

[weaver2]

Good. You have to wonder just how useful that 48 hours would be. I wonder if anyone, after having decided on an abortion - for any reason - had changed their minds. I would be no one.

The fact that 5 years after an abortion 95% of women who abort say they are satisfied that it was the right thing to do speaks to the the intelligence and the willingness of women understand how the whole family is involved and make a decision that is good for everyone, including the life of the potential child.

It's discouraging that anti-abortion men want to portray women as stupid, ditzy, irresponsible and immoral. Women spend a great deal of their lives trying hard to make families work.

 

[Demon]

The fact that 5 years after an abortion 95% of women who abort say they are satisfied that it was the right thing to do speaks to the the intelligence and the willingness of women understand how the whole family is involved and make a decision that is good for everyone, including the life of the potential child.

It's discouraging that anti-abortion men want to portray women as stupid, ditzy, irresponsible and immoral. Women spend a great deal of their lives trying hard to make families work.

Exactly. I have not known anyone who takes the decision lightly.

 

[NewfieMom]

The scales are lifted every time a pro-life woman has an unwanted pregnancy that the family cannot afford to rains, that will hurt the family or that will force the family into poverty. When that happens to a pro-life family they decide the best thing to do for everyone is to get an abortion. The scales are lifted, but only for that pro-life family. Their abortion is necessary. Other women must pay because they are sluts.

Oh how true this is! When I was a teenager my Roman Catholic best friend had an abortion to which I accompanied her. Her parents never learned of it. Our state did not perform abortions. I accompanied her to another state in order for her to have it. Her parents were very judgemental about anyone they thought was having pre-marital sex whether they knew those people actually to be having it or not. They judged the people based on their appearance and lifestyle, whether they appeared to be "hippies", non-conformists.

 

[NewfieMom]

Sounds good; I don't see any legitimate or logical reason for that 2-day wait period.

The logical reason is intimidation of the woman.

 

[year2late]

Goodness me.... it certainly isn't reproductive rights...... get it right ....it's infanticide rights, with a get out of jail card curtesy from RBG a bitter and twisted old targer!
Isn't it great how twisting a natural body process.... into a right, to commit a crime.....sorry, your caught with dirty hands! Including the word Taliban.... to denigrate the discussion to something horrible.....!
The Taliban have fought Americans for nearly nineteen years.... the poorest and the richest.... and you lost! But by god, you increased production of heroin from 2% under the Taliban, to 126% of the worlds supply! Aye the Taliban, I.e. Freedom fighters or your terrorists!

Wait, they are killing infants? That is most assuredly illegal. They should be prosecuted and punished if guilty!

 

[Highlanders]

Wait, they are killing infants? That is most assuredly illegal. They should be prosecuted and punished if guilty!

Well it isn't muskrats...... but pray tell, your not really interested are you, a pretence of interest only!

 

[year2late]

Well it isn't muskrats...... but pray tell, your not really interested are you, a pretence of interest only!

There are already laws against killing infants.

Infantacide is killing a child within a year of birth.

Participation in discussion that involves laws - we should use proper terminology.

 

[Atreus21]

By overturning Roe the red states can legally require women to stay pregnant, deny abortion, make it illegal, impose fines and or jail sentences for getting or attempting to get an illegal abortion. No matter what legal steps are taken the effect is the same: the state controls women's most intimate private life.

If an artificial womb were developed, thereby enabling the woman to safely transfer the baby out of the womb at no risk to either party, would you then oppose abortion?

 

[weaver2]

If an artificial womb were developed, thereby enabling the woman to safely transfer the baby out of the womb at no risk to either party, would you then oppose abortion?

So women's main purpose is producing children and if she doesn't want to be a producer you switch to an artificial womb? And then what? You still have 800,000 extra births How are artificial wombs a solution?

 

[Atreus21]

So women's main purpose is producing children and if she doesn't want to be a producer you switch to an artificial womb?

Yes, to avoid killing anyone.

And then what? You still have 800,000 extra births How are artificial wombs a solution?

By avoiding killing anyone. Killing people to reduce certain populations my be acceptable to nazis, barbarians, or leftists. But not to any civilized society.

 

[Irredentist]

Yes, to avoid killing anyone.



By avoiding killing anyone. Killing people to reduce certain populations my be acceptable to nazis, barbarians, or leftists. But not to any civilized society.

Well people do it all the time in most of the world. Maybe humans aren't as civilized as we pretend to be?

 

[Atreus21]

Well people do it all the time in most of the world. Maybe humans aren't as civilized as we pretend to be?

And that's acceptable to you? You wouldn't mind if a dominant population prescribed the reduction by deliberate death of a minority population?

 

[Irredentist]

And that's acceptable to you? You wouldn't mind if a dominant population prescribed the reduction by deliberate death of a minority population?

Why would it matter if I minded or not? I don't have the power to stop women from having abortions. No one does except her. You can't make people's choices for them. You can only give them options.

 

[year2late]

If an artificial womb were developed, thereby enabling the woman to safely transfer the baby out of the womb at no risk to either party, would you then oppose abortion?

I want you to take a deep breath and think about it for a minute.

Artificial womb developed. BAM. You got your wish. It magically appeared.

So, how do you get the fetus out safely without taking the woman through a major medical or surgical procedure. An abortion takes minutes. A woman does not require anesthesia for an abortion . To transfer the fetus out you would either need to fully dilate the cervix to fully visualize the fetus and placenta, That alone will potentially cause harm to force that to happen. Certainly it would be massively painful and probably require anesthesia. When a pregnant woman is getting near term. he uterus has slowly stretched over time and the cervix goes through a process of changing for birth. Pushing that to happen in short order? Eeeek. Anesthesia, major painful procedure and all the risks of both. other option would be to essentially do a c-section.

I can see use for an artificial womb for a woman that is having difficulty remaining pregnant, and is willing to go through all that. Otherwise it is just nonsensical to think of it as a replacement for abortion.

How about this. Be pragmatic. The best way to avoid abortion is to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Most women who choose abortion are of limited means. The ridiculously low qualification for medicaid means that they cannot access the most reliable forms of contraception. These woman cannot afford the $800 -$1000 pricetag for long term contraception.

 

[weaver2]

Yes, to avoid killing anyone. By avoiding killing anyone. Killing people to reduce certain populations my be acceptable to nazis, barbarians, or leftists. But not to any civilized society.

So a civilized society invents artificial wombs and produces 800,000 extra kids they don't know what to do with. 800,000 babies extra in one year if you overturn Roe. You claim you are a civilized society, what civilized action will you take?

 

[Lursa]

If an artificial womb were developed, thereby enabling the woman to safely transfer the baby out of the womb at no risk to either party, would you then oppose abortion?

The procedure would still require a woman's consent.

Here's a few questions that might affect her decision:

--who's paying for that procedure?

--who's paying for the maintenance of that unborn til birth?

--who's responsible for that baby after birth?

--what if it's born with defects and no one will adopt it?​

What are you thoughts on those questions?

 

[Atreus21]

Why would it matter if I minded or not? I don't have the power to stop women from having abortions. No one does except her. You can't make people's choices for them. You can only give them options.

You said dominant populations murder weaker ones all the time. Is that state of affairs acceptable to you? Just yes or no.

 

[Atreus21]

I want you to take a deep breath and think about it for a minute.

Artificial womb developed. BAM. You got your wish. It magically appeared.

So, how do you get the fetus out safely without taking the woman through a major medical or surgical procedure. An abortion takes minutes. A woman does not require anesthesia for an abortion . To transfer the fetus out you would either need to fully dilate the cervix to fully visualize the fetus and placenta, That alone will potentially cause harm to force that to happen. Certainly it would be massively painful and probably require anesthesia. When a pregnant woman is getting near term. he uterus has slowly stretched over time and the cervix goes through a process of changing for birth. Pushing that to happen in short order? Eeeek. Anesthesia, major painful procedure and all the risks of both. other option would be to essentially do a c-section.

I can see use for an artificial womb for a woman that is having difficulty remaining pregnant, and is willing to go through all that. Otherwise it is just nonsensical to think of it as a replacement for abortion.

How about this. Be pragmatic. The best way to avoid abortion is to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Most women who choose abortion are of limited means. The ridiculously low qualification for medicaid means that they cannot access the most reliable forms of contraception. These woman cannot afford the $800 -$1000 pricetag for long term contraception.

If the child could be transplanted from the biological womb to the artificial one with no more expense in pain, money, or time than an abortion, would you then oppose abortion?

 

[Atreus21]

So a civilized society invents artificial wombs and produces 800,000 extra kids they don't know what to do with. 800,000 babies extra in one year if you overturn Roe. You claim you are a civilized society, what civilized action will you take?

Not kill them, for starters. Are you suggesting we should kill them?

 

[Atreus21]

The procedure would still require a woman's consent.

Here's a few questions that might affect her decision:

--who's paying for that procedure?​

​

--who's paying for the maintenance of that unborn til birth?​

​

--who's responsible for that baby after birth?​

​

--what if it's born with defects and no one will adopt it?​

What are you thoughts on those questions?

Suppose for the sake of argument that I am. I'm willing to cover all costs and raise the child in my home, defects and all. Would you then prohibit abortion?

 

[year2late]

If the child could be transplanted from the biological womb to the artificial one with no more expense in pain, money, or time than an abortion, would you then oppose abortion?

Why not make a scenario that is remotely possible? The pregnant woman would clearly be caused significant pain and risk in your scenario.

I am pro-choice. That should answer your question.

This artificial womb thing seems to be some version of Pro-life porn for you guys.

 

[Atreus21]

Why not make a scenario that is remotely possible? The pregnant woman would clearly be caused significant pain and risk in your scenario.

I am pro-choice. That should answer your question.

So you would still advocate for abortion even if the mother's bodily autonomy wasn't transgressed?