Texas' 6-Week Abortion Ban Takes Effect

[nvflash]

good for me since I am probably going to try to adopt in the next couple of years.

You're a good person for doing that, more people should adopt.

 

[Slartibartfast]

You're a good person for doing that, more people should adopt.

I haven't actually done anything at this point. We are planning marriage first.

 

[nvflash]

I haven't actually done anything at this point. We are planning marriage first.

I understand, just saying, if you find it in yourself to adopt, that makes you a good person in my book, good luck with your marriage.

 

[Lursa]

The legal, unnecessary killing of another human is the antithesis of individual liberty.

That's one of the stupider statements since the unborn cannot exercise any rights, esp. individual liberty. Not only that, women ONLY have abortions out of need. They're not parties, they're painful, costly, and sometimes dangerous. If you believe the govt should start examining women's/couples lives to determine that need, you are not remotely libertarian.

Of course it's a legal decision that the unborn have no rights. The law is based on the Const and the Const upholds women's rights. Laws require some foundation in a legal authority...as you have had explained, scientific categorization is no 'authority' for the law. It is objective and applies no value.

You have never been able to say what authority that others are obligated to follow says the unborn have a right to life...science doesnt 'say' that or 'recognize' that right for any species, including humans.

 

[Josie]

Except there is no killing of another human being, and yes, the right to choose is the a sign of individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It is the legal killing of another human. The right to choose to kill that human unnecessarily shouldn’t be an individual liberty.

 

[Josie]

There isn't an individual in the womb at 6 or 12 weeks or.....

He or she is a separate individual human.

 

[Lursa]

It is the legal killing of another human. The right to choose to kill that human unnecessarily shouldn’t be an individual liberty.

Who says? Who besides you and why? Why should women lose rights because of your opinion?

 

[AGENT J]

Texas' 6-Week Abortion Ban Takes Effect Overnight - https://www.npr.org/2021/09/01/1033171800/texas-abortion-ban-supreme-court-

Here we go.

I thought this was unconstitutional? I thought the SCOTUS would step in and prevent this?

I wouldn’t be heartbroken at all if Texas ever decided to secede.

If course this opens the door for the true morons of the south, Mississippi and others, to follow suit.

Idiocy.

while its batshit insane and dumb i just dont see it surviving long term . . .

in the end IMO it will just be another failed attempt to move backwards

 

[prometeus]

He or she is a separate individual human.

Right, except it can not sustain its own life. So much for being an individual.

 

[prometeus]

It is the legal killing of another human.

No, it is not.

 

[reflechissez]

It's a money thing.

Anti-abortion groups will provide the legal filings and flood abortion clinics with law suits from "individuals" that have to be defended in court. The intent is to bankrupt the clinics.

WW

I still don't see how they do this without violating the woman's right to privacy. Her medical records will now become public because some rando decided to sue?

 

[minnie616]

He or she is a separate individual human.

An unborn is not separate individual as it is attached physically to the women.

…………

U.S. Code § 8.“Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
U.S. Code

Indetermining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

 

[Lursa]

An unborn is not separate individual as it is attached physically to the women.

…………

U.S. Code § 8.“Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
U.S. Code

Indetermining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

And wholly and completely physiologically intertwined with the woman...a dependency that cannot be changed before viability and proof that the unborn is not equal to people. So of course it shouldnt be given equal status and rights that would supersede the rights, will, and life of the woman.

When they resort to the slavery 'example,' that always fails because freed blacks had rights and even those enslaved still exercised some rights and when freed, were capable of exercising all of them.

The unborn isnt capable of exercising a single right independently. That's not 'equal'.

(Btw, @Josie will just say the law you posted should be changed...but she wont say why beyond, 'it has human DNA.)

 

[Lursa]

I still don't see how they do this without violating the woman's right to privacy. Her medical records will now become public because some rando decided to sue?

Exactly. All she has to do is keep it quiet and then just 'be fat.' Women dont even need to go to Drs now to confirm pregnancies, over the counter tests are very accurate.

It's the reduction in clinics or Drs that will occur that is really what will be affected here.

 

[Atreus21]

Cue 18 years from now when all the conservative start bitching about these hoodlums who weren't raised well and are maladjusted.

Whereas progressives believe they'd be better off dead.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Whereas progressives believe they'd be better off dead.

I believe kids are better off being born to mothers who are ready to be mothers.

 

[Lursa]

I believe kids are better off being born to mothers who are ready to be mothers.

Yes. And so is society.

There are no negative effects of abortion on society. At least, no one's ever been able to list any.

 

[Atreus21]

Yes it is

No there isn't.
You can rant all you want but legally it is only the woman and tat is ALL that matter.

Would you be in favor of slavery if it were legal?

 

[Bodi]

Texas' 6-Week Abortion Ban Takes Effect Overnight - https://www.npr.org/2021/09/01/1033171800/texas-abortion-ban-supreme-court-

Here we go.

I thought this was unconstitutional? I thought the SCOTUS would step in and prevent this?

I wouldn’t be heartbroken at all if Texas ever decided to secede.

If course this opens the door for the true morons of the south, Mississippi and others, to follow suit.

Idiocy.

You mean the poorest and dirtiest states that get the most tax dollars and remain shitholes decade after decade? We get nothing and have to give and give... and every other year Texas, Louisiana, Florida, Mississippi is ravaged by another hurricane costing the giver states billions more. Secede? We should be kicking them out.

 

[Atreus21]

I believe kids are better off being born to mothers who are ready to be mothers.

So do I. I simply don't believe we should prescribe death to children who aren't so fortunate.

 

[Slartibartfast]

So do I. I simply don't believe we should prescribe death to children who aren't so fortunate.

We don’t

 

[Bodi]

isn't it? Is it not that this law violates a woman's right to body integrity and making her own medical decisions?

Who is speaking for the human that is about to be killed when an abortion occurs?

 

[Atreus21]

We don’t

We do. Abortion deliberately takes the life of a human being. Science has long held that the unborn are human beings.

 

[Lursa]

We do. Abortion deliberately takes the life of a human being. Science has long held that the unborn are human beings.

Science doesnt recoginize a right to life, or any rights or even any value...for any animals, including humans.

So that's not a valid argument. Science just categorizes and names collections of DNA...like: human, tiger, otter, etc.

 

[Atreus21]

Science doesnt recoginize a right to life, or any rights or even any value...for any animals, including humans.

True. That's a question of natural law not science. But science does acknowledge facts. And the fact is that a human being exists from conception.

So that's not a valid argument. Science just categorizes and names collections of DNA...like: human, tiger, otter, etc.



View attachment 67351312