What The Texas Abortion Ban Does — And What It Means For Other States
With the U.S. Supreme Court mum, a new law went into effect in Texas that bans abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy. That's well before many women even know they are pregnant.
The law allows private citizens to sue abortion providers and anyone else who helps a woman obtain an abortion — including those who give a woman a ride to a clinic or provide financial assistance to obtain an abortion. Private citizens who bring these suits don't need to show any connection to those they are suing.
The law makes no exceptions for cases involving rape or incest.
Here's why the law is one of the strictest abortion bans in the country.
What does the Texas law prohibit?
It bans abortion as soon as cardiac activity is detectable. That's around six weeks, which is before a lot of people know that they're pregnant. Other states have tried to do this, but those laws have been challenged by abortion-rights groups and blocked by federal courts again and again.
How is this law different from other states' efforts?
Groups who oppose abortion rights have pushed for this Texas law, hoping that it will be harder for federal courts to knock it down. Instead of requiring public officials to enforce the law, this law allows individuals to bring civil lawsuits against abortion providers or anyone else found to "aid or abet" illegal abortions.
This law empowers individuals to enforce an abortion ban. How would that work in practice?
Anyone who successfully sues an abortion provider under this law could be awarded at least $10,000. And to prepare for that, Texas Right to Life has set up what it calls a "whistleblower" website where people can submit anonymous tips about anyone they believe to be violating the law.
"These lawsuits are not against the women," says John Seago with Texas Right to Life. "The lawsuits would be against the individuals making money off of the abortion, the abortion industry itself. So this is not spy on your neighbor and see if they're having an abortion."
In a federal lawsuit challenging this, a coalition of abortion providers and reproductive rights groups said the law "places a bounty on people who provide or aid abortions, inviting random strangers to sue them."
What does the law mean for patients and abortion providers?
Dr. Bhavik Kumar, a family medicine doctor who works for Planned Parenthood in Houston, says the law creating a lot of uncertainty for patients and providers. But Kumar insists he will comply.
The ban, though, will likely mean a lot of questions from patients about how they can get an abortion outside of Texas, Kumar said.
"I know that there are many people who don't have to ability to make it out of state ... The logistics and ability to do so is not an option for them," he said. "So I'm really concerned about what's going to happen to people."
Dr. Ghazaleh Moayedi, an OB/GYN, told NPR over the weekend that patients are apprehensive. "They understand that the abortion that they're having this week, last week, the week before, is something that they wouldn't be able to have next week. They've been asking about it and asking, you know, 'If I were here in September, would I be able to get this?' "
What does this mean for abortion laws in other states?
If the federal courts ultimately allow this law to stand, it's very likely that other conservative states will move to pass similar laws. Seago, with Texas Right to Life, said his organization is working with activists in multiple states who are eager to replicate this model if it succeeds in blocking access to most abortions in Texas.
"It is still a bit untested. We're still working on what these lawsuits are going to look like if the industry decides to break the law," Seago said. "So it is a new model that we're still testing out."
What happens next?
Multiple court challenges to the law are underway, including several lawsuits in state court in Texas targeting anti-abortion-rights groups including Texas Right to Life. Abortion rights groups are also organizing protests and demonstrations in Texas in opposition to the law.
A spokeswoman for Texas Right to Life told NPR that no lawsuits against abortion providers are imminent, and abortion providers say they will comply with the law as long as it is in effect.
Whether you are pro choice or anti abotion what they are doing is abhorrent.
Change the issue. Imagine Dems in NY passing a similar law about guns. You can only own a gun if fully loaded it can hold no more than 2 bullits and can shoot no further than 20 feet. And if you do, anyone in the nation can sue you.
The outrage has nothing to do with the issue itself but with what they are doing and how.
That headline is just a flat out lie. I think they should abolish abortion and still think this law is BS but that headline is a simply a FLAT OUT LIE!
IMO you made your choice when u spread your legs but the laws the law and 6 weeks to make a choice from conception is BS IMO but in no way shape or form does this law attempt to end Roe v Wade!
Just another intellectually dishonest post! If u had a conscience you’d be ashamed of yourself!
There is a older more terrifying reality that is going on in this country. Babies are being slaughtered every single day in this country and some people believe thats perfectly fine.
I see three pearl clutching old men commenting on this thread. Each one a proponent of war… where humans are actually slaughtered. Laughable. The coat hanger business should pick up in Texas/Gilead. That’ll make them happy.
But if you are going to do it, when are they going to hold the baby daddy accountable?
Loaded question... There are a lot of "baby daddies" wondering why they should be accountable for anything if they are not even made part of "the choice".
But if you are going to do it, when are they going to hold the baby daddy accountable?
Loaded question... There are a lot of "baby daddies" wondering why they should be accountable for anything if they are not even made part of "the choice".
They wouldn’t be baby daddies if their female partner made ‘the choice’. Not sure what you’re getting at?
But if you are going to do it, when are they going to hold the baby daddy accountable?
Loaded question... There are a lot of "baby daddies" wondering why they should be accountable for anything if they are not even made part of "the choice".
They wouldn’t be baby daddies if their female partner made ‘the choice’. Not sure what you’re getting at?
Just passing on the narrative that's been repeated a lot the past decade or so...
There are many men that have an opinion as follows: "That's all well and good -- 'her body' -- but if I don't want a baby and she decides to go forward and have the baby, why should I have to pay child support?"
I wonder how popular this law will be when women say "no" every single time? I can see it now- gals in mini skirts and cowgirl boots wearing chastity belts to which only they have the keys.
Birth control... Medieval-style. Ain't no school like Old School. But hey- NO MORE ABORTIONS , right? Got what you wanted, right?
I wonder how popular this law will be when women say "no" every single time? I can see it now- gals in mini skirts and cowgirl boots wearing chastity belts to which only they have the keys.
Birth control... Medieval-style. Ain't no school like Old School. But hey- NO MORE ABORTIONS , right? Got what you wanted, right?
Fun times in TX, eh?
yo. these right wing incels were already whining their asses off about not getting any women. boy they about to be extra salty now.
This is obviously a wedge issue, and is often oversimplified by either division. It is also one of - if not the most - touchy topics in modern politics. It has caused single-issue voters to appear on both sides of the aisle.
To start, I think a lot of people are off in what their assumption of Roe v. Wade actually is. Roe did not "legalize" abortion, but it stated that there is a Constitutional right to have an abortion under a woman's right to privacy, depending on the phase of her pregnancy. With the Supreme Court making a Constitutional interpretation in the ruling, the only way around it is either to pass an Amendment, or to get the Supreme Court to overrule or limit its previous interpretations.
I should put a suit of armor on before saying this, but, personally, I am not in favor of abortion. There are too many personal things I have seen and experienced that have driven that belief, that I won't go into here. That being said, I depart from the overarching Republican paradigm.
My issue with the Republican stance is that it is dogmatic, and Abbott certainly falls in line with that notion. My biggest problem is basically the stance that they uphold a moral high ground of being pro-life while also advocating for fiscal policies that contrast with that advocacy.
Basically, "Can I get an abortion?"
"No."
"Will you advocate for me to have the fiscal resources available to help raise the child?"
"Also no."
So, while I am not in favor of abortion, I absolutely think that there needs to be a cultural and economic shift to support mothers and children in those scenarios.
I think the other thing that needs to happen is that people need to recognize their own absolutism and destructive tendencies when this topic arises and actually try to have a meaningful conversation. With this being a wedge issue, politicians on both sides of the aisle stoke the flames of anger and irrationality to gain supporters and single issue voters, to the point where people almost completely overlook the need to hold their respective politicians accountable on other platforms.
but if the first thing people bring up is their religious beliefs, its pretty hard to have any sort of meaningful dialogue. cause at that point i have to argue with people who can always just fall back on "Cause my god said..."
The law allows private citizens to sue abortion providers and anyone else who helps a woman obtain an abortion — including those who give a woman a ride to a clinic or provide financial assistance to obtain an abortion. Private citizens who bring these suits don't need to show any connection to those they are suing.
I think the law is will be ultimately declared unconstitutional as a third party has no standing to make a claim against the woman. No harm is being done to the party bringing the suit, unless that was the partner.
Under this archaic law would a gas station attendant be culpable for filling the tank of a vehicle where the driver was about to drive over the border to have an abortion? I mean they assisted right? Without that gas she wouldn’t make it to the clinic. Jail time for all gas station attendants!!!
You can't. Just like we see in the COVID thread, you're not always going to be able to have a productive conversation with everyone.
Regardless of whether there is a religious element or not, I think it comes down to even just being able to have a dialogue and possessing some form of empathy rather than trying to beat the other side over the head with a stick.
Good. It's about time we started to address the mass murder of humans.
Then stop whining about government programs for the poor. If you're going to force them to have children stop lying.
Your claim is you're pro life. But the truth is you're only pro birth. After they're born you don't give a damn they live in poverty. I mean raising the minimum wage to a livable wage might mean a better life for them but we can't have that, right?
It's rather odd how we don't see the same people blaming women for the pregnancy promoting castration for dead beat dads. Things that make you go hmmm.
I wonder how popular this law will be when women say "no" every single time? I can see it now- gals in mini skirts and cowgirl boots wearing chastity belts to which only they have the keys.
Birth control... Medieval-style. Ain't no school like Old School. But hey- NO MORE ABORTIONS , right? Got what you wanted, right?
Fun times in TX, eh?
yo. these right wing incels were already whining their asses off about not getting any women. boy they about to be extra salty now.
Yep. Ladies in Texas just need to let 'em all know, "Ain't nobody hittin' nothin' 'round here 'til that law is gone. Yippee Ki Yi Aye Texas."
Oh I’m totally for mandated vasectomies for every 13 year old boy. They can have the plumbing turned back in when they’re ready. It’d completely stop unwanted pregnancies. 99.99% fail proof.
I wonder how popular this law will be when women say "no" every single time? I can see it now- gals in mini skirts and cowgirl boots wearing chastity belts to which only they have the keys.
Birth control... Medieval-style. Ain't no school like Old School. But hey- NO MORE ABORTIONS , right? Got what you wanted, right?
Fun times in TX, eh?
yo. these right wing incels were already whining their asses off about not getting any women. boy they about to be extra salty now.
Yep. Ladies in Texas just need to let 'em all know, "Ain't nobody hittin' nothin' 'round here 'til that law is gone. Yippee Ki Yi Aye Texas."
But they won’t. Then they’ll be outraged when they’re forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy. Then they’ll vote for another authoritarian Republican idiot for state office. Rinse repeat. Texas is set to feed the cannon fodder poor for our next big war. Just give it 18 years.
Under this archaic law would a gas station attendant be culpable for filling the tank of a vehicle where the driver was about to drive over the border to have an abortion? I mean they assisted right? Without that gas she wouldn’t make it to the clinic. Jail time for all gas station attendants!!!
It is true though that many left leaning people have been fleeing California, New York, Illinois and other states to move to Texas because of the economic opportunity, tax rates, etc. It has been the fastest growing state in America. Then they get there and do everything they can to elect politicians who have the same platform as the ones they fled from.. it is kind of mind boggling.
Maybe this law is an extreme push to get them to go home.
I wonder how popular this law will be when women say "no" every single time? I can see it now- gals in mini skirts and cowgirl boots wearing chastity belts to which only they have the keys.
Birth control... Medieval-style. Ain't no school like Old School. But hey- NO MORE ABORTIONS , right? Got what you wanted, right?
Fun times in TX, eh?
yo. these right wing incels were already whining their asses off about not getting any women. boy they about to be extra salty now.
Yep. Ladies in Texas just need to let 'em all know, "Ain't nobody hittin' nothin' 'round here 'til that law is gone. Yippee Ki Yi Aye Texas."
But they won’t. Then they’ll be outraged when they’re forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy. Then they’ll vote for another authoritarian Republican idiot for state office. Rinse repeat. Texas is set to feed the cannon fodder poor for our next big war. Just give it 18 years.
How would you feel about men having the right to raise their own children without woman killing them? I mean why should the woman have the right, that men don't have???
Under this archaic law would a gas station attendant be culpable for filling the tank of a vehicle where the driver was about to drive over the border to have an abortion? I mean they assisted right? Without that gas she wouldn’t make it to the clinic. Jail time for all gas station attendants!!!
When did the killing of life become archaic bro?
Portland: Yes, ANYONE involved in ANY WAY.
GM: Stop being nonsensical. We get that you don't want abortions legal bro, but your side offers that young lady in trouble who never choose to be jack crap in the way of solutions. When the RED STATE of Gilead has an infrastructure in place to allow these women to (without shame) give up a child while knowing with 100% certainty that the child will be cared for and loved until it is an adult OR that she will be subsudized in some way to insure she can provide all of that...
When you can prove to me that the world is a wonderful place that takes care of all babies and insures each a loving bountiful environment to grow up in... Then I will worry about fetuses dying in the womb. Until then, your side is nothing more than the devil spreading poverty, child abuse, and suffering amongst those least able to stand up to you. That's real honorable.
It has been the fastest growing state in America. Then they get there and do everything they can to elect politicians who have the same platform as the ones they fled from.. it is kind of mind boggling.
Maybe this law is an extreme push to get them to go home.
No, they're there trying to help change Texas from Red to Blue. And if you look at the margins on the past few elections, they're getting closer all the time.
It has been the fastest growing state in America. Then they get there and do everything they can to elect politicians who have the same platform as the ones they fled from.. it is kind of mind boggling.
Maybe this law is an extreme push to get them to go home.
No, they're there trying to help change Texas from Red to Blue. And if you look at the margins on the past few elections, they're getting closer all the time.
So they can ruin it like the states they came from.
Wait so I'm being nonsensical because I don't want children murdered but, you think your being sensical because you approve it.
WOW, just WOW
Quote:
When the RED STATE of Gilead has an infrastructure in place to allow these women to (without shame) give up a child while knowing with 100% certainty that the child will be cared for and loved until it is an adult OR that she will be subsudized in some way to insure she can provide all of that...
Please correct me if I am wrong, but your saying that it's better to murder a baby than to give that baby a chance to have a good life??? What would you give if you were 100 percent sure to die young, or given a chance to live your life?
Not children. Are you uneducable? It’s simple biology. They’re cell clumps. Zygotes at best. Far far far from children. Try again without your hyperbole.
When you can prove to me that the world is a wonderful place that takes care of all babies and insures each a loving bountiful environment to grow up in... Then I will worry about fetuses dying in the womb. Until then, your side is nothing more than the devil spreading poverty, child abuse, and suffering amongst those least able to stand up to you. That's real honorable.
Well hell then lets just drop 1,000 nukes and kill everybody since nobody is guarenteed a loving or bountiful life, or enviroment to grow up in. They never have, and they never will.
Not children. Are you uneducable? It’s simple biology. They’re cell clumps. Zygotes at best. Far far far from children. Try again without your hyperbole.
And your trying to ease your own conscious bro. There is know way in hell that I would ever believe that your all for killing a baby 2 days after it came out of the womb, or two weeks, two months or two years. Yet you insist that it's OK to kill it if it has not passed through the vagina yet.
So they can ruin it like the states they came from.
It appears they don't think they're "ruined". I moved from Ohio to Tennessee. Do you believe I think Ohio is "ruined"? Here's a hint for you. I don't.
And I'm sure some people moved from Tennessee to Ohio.. but when year after year, consistently, twice as many people are moving in one direction than the other, it kind of says that they find something fundamentally flawed with one of the states.
Not children. Are you uneducable? It’s simple biology. They’re cell clumps. Zygotes at best. Far far far from children. Try again without your hyperbole.
And your trying to ease your own conscious bro. There is know way in hell that I would ever believe that your all for killing a baby 2 days after it came out of the womb, or two weeks, two months or two years. Yet you insist that it's OK to kill it if it has not passed through the vagina yet.
You’re correct. I’m not for killing babies. Abortions (non late term, which I’m no fan of on any level) don’t kill babies. I’ve explained this over and over. You refuse to listen.
Sorry bro it's you who refuse to open your eyes and see that killing a baby is killing a baby. You can try your best to sooth your own mind and deny that it's murder, but deep down I think you know the truth.
I doubt that. What I think we both agree on is that the tax code favors businesses in Texas. But then we also see what their electric grid is like so there is certainly a price to be paid for doing billionaires a favor.
But at any rate, as such, attracting jobs is a strong suit of Texas. Same goes for here in Tennessee. People would rather pay almost $20 on two hundred dollars worth of groceries than to pay income tax. I mean it only hurts the poor the most, right?
So I'm sure that most of those people move to Texas for job opportunities but that doesn't mean they agree with the overall politics of the state.
You see, unlike what people seem to proclaim these days, you can like parts of both parties but prefer one over the other. It's not an all or nothing sum game.
Sorry bro it's you who refuse to open your eyes and see that killing a baby is killing a baby. You can try your best to sooth your own mind and deny that it's murder, but deep down I think you know the truth.
First you have to have a baby. A bay can breathe on its own.
Look, I do not approve of abortion. That choice was made when my wife got pregnant with my daughter at an early age. My daughter made that same choice when she got pregnant at a young age. In both case abortions weren't the right choice for us when we could have decided differently. But to claim a fetus who could not even breath on its own is "a baby" is ridiculous.
If you're speaking of late term abortions where a baby could breathe on its own to sustain its life we agree.
My family made our choices. It was no to abortions. Yet I'm not going to crusade to impose my choice on everyone else.
and I respect that bro. I also know your heart and I know your not in favor of abortions. But as for me I see abortion as MURDER and can not, will not, and never will, be OK with what I believe myself to be murdering innocent babies.
I hate to say this as (watch you will see by the responses) but I believe when I stand before God he will say why did you support killing my children) However I worry just as much about myself. How can I truly look in the mirror and think it's OK to murder babies, when the fact is that they will grow up to be people unless we kill them first.
I understand your passion. And while we don't 100% agree on the abortion issue I think as it pertains to our own life and own choices we very much do.
To me that's the answer God will get. "I don't support killing children. The choice of whether they decided to do that or not was their decision, not mine."
What people consider sin to be and what their decision is, is between them and God. Not between me, them and God. I guess it comes down to what I think is a founding principal of our nation for me. And I don't actually expect you to agree with me. But to me freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.
We both believe in God. We both believe we will have to answer for the things we do on this earth. But a lot of people do not believe that. And I see that as their right to believe what they want to believe or not believe in what they decide not to believe. I don't feel I have the right to impose what I believe upon them. I also don't believe God expects me too either.
Wait so I'm being nonsensical because I don't want children murdered but, you think your being sensical because you approve it.
WOW, just WOW
Quote:
When the RED STATE of Gilead has an infrastructure in place to allow these women to (without shame) give up a child while knowing with 100% certainty that the child will be cared for and loved until it is an adult OR that she will be subsudized in some way to insure she can provide all of that...
Please correct me if I am wrong, but your saying that it's better to murder a baby than to give that baby a chance to have a good life??? What would you give if you were 100 percent sure to die young, or given a chance to live your life?
Show me this supposed chance in real numbers. Until then all I hear is blah blah blah. What you are saying is that YOU a completely unrelated party (because we know you are not having sex and making babies), should have the right to decide for all the generations to come what is right and wrong because of your religion? personal morals? generation you were raised?... Seriously, where the hell do you get off thinking you and your ilk have that right? So don't you dare try to make me out the villain. Nobody forces anyone to have an abortion that I know of, and nobody should force a woman to have a baby she doesn't want or can't take care of herself. There is NO high moral ground in this discussion. And you know damn good and well that non-viable fetuses are not babies.
When you can prove to me that the world is a wonderful place that takes care of all babies and insures each a loving bountiful environment to grow up in... Then I will worry about fetuses dying in the womb. Until then, your side is nothing more than the devil spreading poverty, child abuse, and suffering amongst those least able to stand up to you. That's real honorable.
Well hell then lets just drop 1,000 nukes and kill everybody since nobody is guarenteed a loving or bountiful life, or enviroment to grow up in. They never have, and they never will.
Or we could just leave it up to the person whose body contains and made the fetus. Or is that too much to ask?
I understand your passion. And while we don't 100% agree on the abortion issue I think as it pertains to our own life and own choices we very much do.
To me that's the answer God will get. "I don't support killing children. The choice of whether they decided to do that or not was their decision, not mine."
What people consider sin to be and what their decision is, is between them and God. Not between me, them and God. I guess it comes down to what I think is a founding principal of our nation for me. And I don't actually expect you to agree with me. But to me freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.
We both believe in God. We both believe we will have to answer for the things we do on this earth. But a lot of people do not believe that. And I see that as their right to believe what they want to believe or not believe in what they decide not to believe. I don't feel I have the right to impose what I believe upon them. I also don't believe God expects me too either.
Question bro.
Do t you believe shooting and killing a 2 year old is wrong?
Wait so I'm being nonsensical because I don't want children murdered but, you think your being sensical because you approve it.
WOW, just WOW
Quote:
When the RED STATE of Gilead has an infrastructure in place to allow these women to (without shame) give up a child while knowing with 100% certainty that the child will be cared for and loved until it is an adult OR that she will be subsudized in some way to insure she can provide all of that...
Please correct me if I am wrong, but your saying that it's better to murder a baby than to give that baby a chance to have a good life??? What would you give if you were 100 percent sure to die young, or given a chance to live your life?
Show me this supposed chance in real numbers. Until then all I hear is blah blah blah. What you are saying is that YOU a completely unrelated party (because we know you are not having sex and making babies), should have the right to decide for all the generations to come what is right and wrong because of your religion? personal morals? generation you were raised?... Seriously, where the hell do you get off thinking you and your ilk have that right? So don't you dare try to make me out the villain. Nobody forces anyone to have an abortion that I know of, and nobody should force a woman to have a baby she doesn't want or can't take care of herself. There is NO high moral ground in this discussion. And you know damn good and well that non-viable fetuses are not babies.
Sorry bro it's you who refuse to open your eyes and see that killing a baby is killing a baby. You can try your best to sooth your own mind and deny that it's murder, but deep down I think you know the truth.
Wrong. You are just another science denier on this issue GM. Whenever abortion comes up, you (my friend) start sounding like a crazed bible thumper with your "it's a baby from inception" rhetoric. There is no grey area for you and that's a BIG issue with GOPer politics in general, it's always your way or no way and over half the population doesn't think like you or share the same values as you... and most modern normal (not Trumpian) adults believe in science.
An aborted baby has ZERO percent that is a real number. A living baby has a chance be it 1 percent or 100 percent that my friend is also a real number. You can not deny those FACTS. So the blah, blah, blah is only coming from your fingers bro.
Sorry bro it's you who refuse to open your eyes and see that killing a baby is killing a baby. You can try your best to sooth your own mind and deny that it's murder, but deep down I think you know the truth.
Wrong. You are just another science denier on this issue GM. Whenever abortion comes up, you (my friend) start sounding like a crazed bible thumper with your "it's a baby from inception" rhetoric. There is no grey area for you and that's a BIG issue with GOPer politics in general, it's always your way or no way and over half the population doesn't think like you or share the same values as you... and most modern normal (not Trumpian) adults believe in science.
Once again your wrong bro. As of June 9th of this year 53 percent of people disagree with you.
You will never see the light on this issue, so there is no use in continuing this exercise in futility. Plain and simple, your POV is wrong because I think so, and mine is wrong because you think so... there is no middle ground here.
You will never see the light on this issue, so there is no use in continuing this exercise in futility. Plain and simple, your POV is wrong because I think so, and mine is wrong because you think so... there is no middle ground here.
Your correct. But I still love ya bro
I only wish more folks could learn to love each other even when they disagree.
Ok, GM, I understand your personal feelings on the subject…. But it raises questions…
How do you feel about the morning after pill?
How do you feel about birth control?
Should birth control and the morning after pill be free?
I have 4 sisters that had children before their 18th birthday. Right or wrong it does not matter and significantly changed their lives. It is a challenge that I do not wish upon anyone.
Are you willing to change the Lone Star of Texas to the Coat Hanger of Texas? That will happen as well. Let’s just say I have seen that too….
A cut and paste from FB… not my words but my sentiment.
I'm not pro-murdering babies. I'm pro-Becky who found out at her 20-week anatomy scan that the infant she had been so excited to bring into this world had developed without life sustaining organs. I'm pro-Susan who was sexually assaulted on her way home from work, only to come to the horrific realization that her assailant planted his seed in her when she got a positive pregnancy test result a month later. I'm pro-Theresa who hemorrhaged due to a placental abruption, causing her parents, spouse, and children to have to make the impossible decision on whether to save her or her unborn child. I'm pro-little Cathy who had her innocence ripped away from her by someone she should have been able to trust and her 11-year-old body isn't mature enough to bear the consequence of that betrayal. I'm pro-Melissa who's working two jobs just to make ends meet and has to choose between bringing another child into poverty or feeding the children she already has because her spouse walked out on her. I'm pro-Brittany who realizes that she is in no way financially, emotionally, or physically able to raise a child. I'm pro-Emily who went through IVF, ending up with SIX viable implanted eggs requiring selective reduction to ensure the safety of her and a SAFE number of fetuses. I'm pro-Jessica who is FINALLY getting the strength to get away from her physically abusive spouse only to find out that she is carrying the monster's child. I'm pro-Vanessa who went into her confirmation appointment after YEARS of trying to conceive only to hear silence where there should be a heartbeat. I'm pro-Lindsay who lost her virginity in her sophomore year with a broken condom and now has to choose whether to be a teenage mom or just a teenager. I'm pro-Courtney who just found out she's already 13 weeks along, but the egg never made it out of her fallopian tube so either she terminates the pregnancy or risks dying from internal bleeding. You can argue and say that I'm pro-choice all you want, but the truth is: I'm pro-life. Their lives. Women's lives. You don't get to pick and choose which scenarios should be accepted. It's not about which stories you don't agree with. It's about fighting for the women in the stories that you do agree with and the CHOICE that was made. Women's rights are meant to protect ALL women, regardless of their situation! #roevwade #prochoice #abortion #women #womensrights #mybody #mychoice #mybodymychoice Copied and pasted to share.
To me the issue isn't so much about Abortion it's about the Law. Are we a nation of laws or not? When we fervently don't agree with the law - either for ideological reasons or because of religion, whatever - is it then okay to contrive to skirt, manipulate and perform legalize gymnastics in order to circumnavigate the intent of the Law and precedent set down by Supreme Court rulings?
The Texas Law in essence bans Abortions - many/most women don't know they are pregnant at 6 weeks. The way the law in TX is written, relying on public reporting and prosecuting of offenders is why / how they manipulated the intent of Abortion laws in this country. Seems like a slippery slope of underhanded baloney.
I get that people don't believe in abortion - but at what point are passionate people crossing a line that if it was a liberal ideological belief, like guns or LBQT etc ... or a Muslim religious belief or a Buddhist or Islamist belief that a large group of people manipulated the system .... and these folks so proudly claiming what Texas has done is great, would suddenly be up in arms and looking for a nuclear option to prevent it. Clear and simple.
Ok, GM, I understand your personal feelings on the subject…. But it raises questions…
How do you feel about the morning after pill?
How do you feel about birth control?
Should birth control and the morning after pill be free?
I have 4 sisters that had children before their 18th birthday. Right or wrong it does not matter and significantly changed their lives. It is a challenge that I do not wish upon anyone.
Are you willing to change the Lone Star of Texas to the Coat Hanger of Texas? That will happen as well. Let’s just say I have seen that too….
Morning after pill... I'm against it.
Birth control all for most forms of it. (Remember some folks consider the morning after pill birth control)
As far as birth control being free... I don't think it should be. But I do believe it should be really cheap and affordable.
This issue is not about abortion. It shouldn't matter if you are pro choice or anti abortion, everyone should be appalled at how the texas legislature is doing this.
Imagine if a blue state tried to do something similar with guns. The outrage from those supporting this law would be off the charts.
This issue is not about abortion. It shouldn't matter if you are pro choice or anti abortion, everyone should be appalled at how the texas legislature is doing this.
Imagine if a blue state tried to do something similar with guns. The outrage from those supporting this law would be off the charts.
Gun rights are a part of the US Constitution and is very specifically noted...as in right #2...abortion rights are not part of the Constitution. You are comparing apples with lugnuts.
Abortion is a states-rights issue...always has been as abortion 'rights' is no where to be found in the US Constitution. Roe v Wade had no constitutional standing in the first place...even though this SCOTUS did not overturn Roe v Wad nor did it do anything to address Roe v Wade re: the Texas ruling.
The SCOTUS got this right when they judged the issue to be a states' rights issue...whether one agrees with abortion is irrelevant in this matter.
As far as birth control being free... I don't think it should be. But I do believe it should be really cheap and affordable.
So you propose those that can't afford birth control, the poorest of the poor, should not have the opportunity to prevent a pregnancy? Which pretty much assures us that they will be receiving tax payer benefits for at least 18 years.
But anyone who can pay for birth control, those better off than the poorest of the poor, should have that choice?
Now just remember, the party you must support in order to promote abortions be illegal, fight tooth and nail against every program to support the poor. So once they're born poor the odds are they're going to stay poor.
The way my math works I would rather give the poor free birth control than pay benefits to their children for 18 years.
So you propose those that can't afford birth control, the poorest of the poor, should not have the opportunity to prevent a pregnancy?
What part of really cheap and affordable is hard to understand? If they can't afford 2 bucks a month for Birth control, I doubt they are buying and using soap, shampoo, or tooth paste, so nobody is going to want to touch them to begin with.
As far as birth control being free... I don't think it should be. But I do believe it should be really cheap and affordable.
Now just remember, the party you must support in order to promote abortions be illegal, fight tooth and nail against every program to support the poor. So once they're born poor the odds are they're going to stay poor.
So untrue. Here's one for you... your party are accessories to murders. See...saying ridiculous things is not reserved for one side or the other.
The discussion on this thread is how Texas' abortion law is an attempt to end Roe v Wade. The SCOTUS did not invoke Roe v Wade because that is NOT what they were deliberating...they were deliberating something that is a states' rights issue and SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over such.
BTW: Trump did more for poor people than any President I can remember..."doing more for people" does not = giving out free stuff all the time. Helping them become self-sufficient is Liberty.
I'll stand by the fact you'd rather risk paying childcare benefits for 18 years than give up on the two bucks a month. Really? Over two frickin' dollars?
They're halfway to their goal of keeping women barefoot and pregnant. I heard a rumor that their governor is considering creating the Texas Taliban. He plans to use them to set up check points to turn back pregnant women from leaving the state.
Well if there are any Texas women that want to visit Oregon….
To all of my friends in Texas (even those I’ve yet to meet) who may find themselves pregnant: I just want you to know that I would love for you to come for a visit. It's been so long since we've spent time together, and it would be my privilege to host you, help to schedule any totally random appointments you might need while you're here, and escort you to those appointments.
After any (again, TOTALLY RANDOM) appointments, we will gorge ourselves on whatever delicious things you crave and talk. I’ll provide a space for you to sit quietly, laugh, cry, hug, or anything else you need to feel safe, loved, nurtured and cared for.
This issue is not about abortion. It shouldn't matter if you are pro choice or anti abortion, everyone should be appalled at how the texas legislature is doing this.
Imagine if a blue state tried to do something similar with guns. The outrage from those supporting this law would be off the charts.
Gun rights are a part of the US Constitution and is very specifically noted...as in right #2...abortion rights are not part of the Constitution. You are comparing apples with lugnuts.
Abortion is a states-rights issue...always has been as abortion 'rights' is no where to be found in the US Constitution. Roe v Wade had no constitutional standing in the first place...even though this SCOTUS did not overturn Roe v Wad nor did it do anything to address Roe v Wade re: the Texas ruling.
The SCOTUS got this right when they judged the issue to be a states' rights issue...whether one agrees with abortion is irrelevant in this matter.
I would disagree with your oranges to lugnuts statement because each state has it's own gun laws. But to help you understand, substitute gun laws in my example for some state law that you support and are in favor of.
What they are doing is an end around the current laws of the land. It is underhanded and should not be tolerated.
You need to stop being so concrete in your thoughts and learn to think conceptually.
This issue is not about abortion. It shouldn't matter if you are pro choice or anti abortion, everyone should be appalled at how the texas legislature is doing this.
Imagine if a blue state tried to do something similar with guns. The outrage from those supporting this law would be off the charts.
Gun rights are a part of the US Constitution and is very specifically noted...as in right #2...abortion rights are not part of the Constitution. You are comparing apples with lugnuts.
Abortion is a states-rights issue...always has been as abortion 'rights' is no where to be found in the US Constitution. Roe v Wade had no constitutional standing in the first place...even though this SCOTUS did not overturn Roe v Wad nor did it do anything to address Roe v Wade re: the Texas ruling.
The SCOTUS got this right when they judged the issue to be a states' rights issue...whether one agrees with abortion is irrelevant in this matter.
I would disagree with your oranges to lugnuts statement because each state has it's own gun laws. But to help you understand, substitute gun laws in my example for some state law that you support and are in favor of.
What they are doing is an end around the current laws of the land. It is underhanded and should not be tolerated.
You need to stop being so concrete in your thoughts and learn to think conceptually.
Gun rights are part of the US Constitution...abortion rights are not. When an issue is before the SCOTUS, it's never about what you, me or anyone else wants....it's about our Constitution.
The only concrete in my thoughts is that we have (3) independent branches of government that made this the greatest country on Earth.
Yeah, you're another part of the pro birth crowd claiming to be pro life. Once they're born you no longer give a damn.
I've not expressed my opinion on here whether abortion is good/fair/not-my-business. IMO,it is - and always has been - a state's rights issue.
I do find it interesting that the ideology that is in favor of killing a fetus somehow takes the high ground on being the "helper/custodian-of" that fetus when it escapes the womb intact and alive.
So since it's already "the greatest country on Earth" there was no reason or truth that we needed to Make America Great Again?
Man, when you start sliding down that slope you really like to stomp your feet.
Do you want to talk about what's good/great FOR our country or continue personal attacks as deflection from the reality of the abortion-as-states'-rights issue?
Yet it was the SCOTUS that ruled on both Roe vs Wade and this latest Texas abortion issue. What it seems you are saying is that the SCOTUS has no business making such rulings in the first place. Is that correct?
How was asking that question a personal attack? You said that we are the greatest country on earth. So I asked the question. I notice the one thing you didn't do was answer it.
And I will give you some credit. At least you know the difference between a fetus and a baby even though your posts don't seem to reflect that reality.
You know, for an entire gender of people who have no vagina, they certainly seem intent on controlling the vaginas of the gender that has them.
QFT … I’d be willing to bet that the intellectually dishonest crew crapped on it and is now ignoring it cause that’s how they roll …
The president of the intellectually dishonest crew has a sig that says something like “no one cares about your feelings” but he refuses to acknowledge that FACTS DON’T HAVE FEELINGS and what i said is 100% a FACT … must be nice to go through life with no conscience … THANKS Y’All …
Originally Posted By: DiamDawg
That headline is just a flat out lie. I think they should abolish abortion and still think this law is BS but that headline is a simply a FLAT OUT LIE!
IMO you made your choice when u spread your legs but the laws the law and 6 weeks to make a choice from conception is BS IMO but in no way shape or form does this law attempt to end Roe v Wade!
Just another intellectually dishonest post! If u had a conscience you’d be ashamed of yourself!
And we know only your opinion matters. The vigilante law Texas passed has nothing to do with the state of Texas having an impact on abortion. Instead it allows the Christian right to persecute women trying to get an abortion under the protection Row vs Wade. It is a direct attack of Roe vs Wade.
But then some people believe that Christians should have the ability to inflict their religious beliefs on everyone. So much for separation of church and state.
I don't claim to know whether abortion should or shouldn't be legal. What I do know is that at this point and time, in our country, it is legal. And this texas law is a dirty unhanded way of circumventing the law.
Now you may be in favor of this law because you are against abortion. But if we allow them to get away with it this time, the next time they may screw with something you don't want screwed with and you will have no recourse.
But if we allow them to get away with it this time, the next time they may screw with something you don't want screwed with and you will have no recourse.
The majority of this country is against open borders and sanctuary cities...and you're right, we have no recourse for this clown administration destroying our country.
As far as birth control being free... I don't think it should be. But I do believe it should be really cheap and affordable.
Now just remember, the party you must support in order to promote abortions be illegal, fight tooth and nail against every program to support the poor. So once they're born poor the odds are they're going to stay poor.
So untrue. Here's one for you... your party are accessories to murders. See...saying ridiculous things is not reserved for one side or the other.
The discussion on this thread is how Texas' abortion law is an attempt to end Roe v Wade. The SCOTUS did not invoke Roe v Wade because that is NOT what they were deliberating...they were deliberating something that is a states' rights issue and SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over such.
BTW: Trump did more for poor people than any President I can remember..."doing more for people" does not = giving out free stuff all the time. Helping them become self-sufficient is Liberty.
As difficult as a subject that this is, I can't fathom it as a states rights issue. That is asking for chaos.
I'll stand by the fact you'd rather risk paying childcare benefits for 18 years than give up on the two bucks a month. Really? Over two frickin' dollars?
So you value money over life.
That is what it boils down to no matter how you choose to spin it. You have boiled a human life down to $2.
I'll stand by the fact you'd rather risk paying childcare benefits for 18 years than give up on the two bucks a month. Really? Over two frickin' dollars?
It's not over 2 dollars man. It's over the fact that people just don't appreciate things given to them for free, but they appreciate things more when they pay for them. People may be poor but they still deserve some self respect and dignity.
Do you think Section 8 housing should be free as well? Hey live here rent free for the rest of your life. No need to pay a portion of your income.
If you are advocating people pay or don't pay for birth control according to their income, then we can agree that makes sense. You do realize that's exactly how section eight housing works, right?
You see, I don't really care how much they "appreciate it" in terms of birth control. Here's what you're advocating in math terms.....
Two dollars a month for 18 years is 432 dollars. If say a sixteen year old girl gets pregnant and doesn't finish high school, she will most likely be on government assistance. Food assistance, housing assistance, the child will receive medicaid. You will pay more per month for that child's care than you would have paid to help her prevent that pregnancy. Now multiply that over many years.
I'm speaking from the practicality standpoint. If a girl lives in poverty your suggestion is that we risk spending tens of thousands of dollars to help raise a child over many years rather than help prevent that situation in the first place.
And you act as if that would mean they have no choice. Nobody "demands" you get free birth control. If they care so much about their dignity and self respect, they have the choice to go to a doctor or get their birth control in a manner they can pay for it.
In general I am against abortions... I've always felt that life starts when blood starts flowing through the body, which would be about 6 weeks... so that part of the law I support...
the part where it incentives a third party (neighbors) to turn in others is ridiculous...
I also feel that should have an exception for rape/incest...
Someone asked earlier if birth control and the morning after pill should be free? Absolutely... the best way (IMO) to combat abortions in this country is to do a better job of offering free birth control and education... I get those who say 'abstinence is the best form of birth control'... but come on...let's be real... young people in this country should have access to free birth control and education on the importance of using it not only to prevent an unwanted pregnancy but also STDs....
We also need to significantly improve the adoption process... there are thousands of families who want to have kids and can't but the adoption process is so frigging difficult to navigate through that i's prohibitive for many of these families to adopt....
So while I support abortion legalization, this specific law took it too far and we have done a poor job of supporting adoption and birth control/education which could make a bigger impact...
As far as birth control being free... I don't think it should be. But I do believe it should be really cheap and affordable.
I said cheap and affordable. Base it on income but don't make it free. Section 8 charges 30 to 40 percent of income for rent, so charging $2 bucks to somebody who only makes 1,000 a month is way less than 1 percent.
Depends on if she works or not. She would also be living with somebody who is paying for her housing, and food. It can be based on household income. Hell if she lives at home and her parents make 100,000 per year why should she get free birth control?
You can't. Just like we see in the COVID thread, you're not always going to be able to have a productive conversation with everyone.
Regardless of whether there is a religious element or not, I think it comes down to even just being able to have a dialogue and possessing some form of empathy rather than trying to beat the other side over the head with a stick.
I wonder how anti-abortionists feel about the mechanics of this law. Essentially turning any willing and eager private citizen into a bounty hunter of sorts.
You can't. Just like we see in the COVID thread, you're not always going to be able to have a productive conversation with everyone.
Regardless of whether there is a religious element or not, I think it comes down to even just being able to have a dialogue and possessing some form of empathy rather than trying to beat the other side over the head with a stick.
I wonder how anti-abortionists feel about the mechanics of this law. Essentially turning any willing and eager private citizen into a bounty hunter of sorts.
I have no problem with being able to sue the provider, and DR. However it is asinine that they can sue anybody who drives her, or gives her money.
Bro, this is government sanctioned vigilantism. In what world could this possibly be a good idea? Basically, republicans just created another divide between citizens by introducing a brown shirt style group of anti abortionists to turn in females suspected of seeking or getting an abortion. This is sick. Disgusting. Un-American. And unconstitutional.
I hope Greg Abbott goes out like Kadafi with a stick. Nobody I know deserves that more.
I also hve a problem that anyone can sue. Either if us could sue someone in texas. In what world does that make sense?
Where is all the outrage manifested by the people against, what was it called, where they wanted to have people report people who owned guns but had mental health issues?
I always wonder why conservatives want women to just be baby factories.
The war machine needs cannon fodder. The poor tend to enlist at higher rates than middle and upper class kids. Desperation to get out of poverty often times is weighed against being potentially shot at. Gangs and the military are living proof. There’s nothing a conservative likes more than war.
How many millions of babies are we still murdering a year?
None. I mean we are removing some zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, or maybe even fetuses BUT none were babies. It's a baby when it's born as far as I'm concerned.
But you can call them whatever the hell you want, just don't bring this crap at me again because I don't play well with trolls and I damn sure don't buy your BS.
How many millions of babies are we still murdering a year?
I don't know.
You would have to ask the accounting firms who work the production numbers for Eckrich, Oscar Meyer, Hillshire Farms, Jimmy Dean, Tyson and Smithfield. Only they know how rapacious Hillary's Hungry Hoarde is. Don't you know that all these major meat houses have sweet, succulent side-deals with the Satan worshippers? Private stock. All on the down-low, you know.
'cause you just know Killary and Bill (and all the other global elites) ain't preparing they own custom cuts.
j/c I am in no way making any comment on the topic here, ok?
However, just this weekend, I held a 3 day old piglet. There were 3 of them. The 4th piglet got killed by her momma. I held 1, wife held 1, and a friend held 1.
These piglets could not survive if it weren't for the person that interfered with the mothers intention of killing them all. Luckily, the mom only got 1.
Ever hold a 3 day old piglet? They are pigs - just little. But, 3 days prior, some on here would say "just a clump of cells".
Truthfully, with a mother that wouldn't care for them, they would/ve been dead after birth.
Apparently the 4 piglets weren't worthy of life? Just the 3 that were saved?
You can't. Just like we see in the COVID thread, you're not always going to be able to have a productive conversation with everyone.
Regardless of whether there is a religious element or not, I think it comes down to even just being able to have a dialogue and possessing some form of empathy rather than trying to beat the other side over the head with a stick.
I wonder how anti-abortionists feel about the mechanics of this law. Essentially turning any willing and eager private citizen into a bounty hunter of sorts.
I will say that I do not favor abortion, and I absolutely abhor this element of the law. It has no place in the discussion, and I actually think it is counter-productive to implementing the ideology behind it, which leads me to speculate that the new law is actually more about base galvanization than it actually is about sustaining the core goal.
I actually looked at Portland's long list of people he named and advocated for, and I empathized with a lot of it. I absolutely agree that those people should have advocacy. He and I probably differ on the means obviously, but I think that is where a productive conversation might actually take place (likely not on a large scale with the rampant polarity surrounding the issue).
Texas coming in with a blunt force instrument and punitive approach just pulls the pendulum way up the other side, and we all know what happens when you do that.
For those that may have missed it or immediately dismissed it.
Originally Posted By: PortlandDawg
A cut and paste from FB… not my words but my sentiment.
I'm not pro-murdering babies. I'm pro-Becky who found out at her 20-week anatomy scan that the infant she had been so excited to bring into this world had developed without life sustaining organs. I'm pro-Susan who was sexually assaulted on her way home from work, only to come to the horrific realization that her assailant planted his seed in her when she got a positive pregnancy test result a month later. I'm pro-Theresa who hemorrhaged due to a placental abruption, causing her parents, spouse, and children to have to make the impossible decision on whether to save her or her unborn child. I'm pro-little Cathy who had her innocence ripped away from her by someone she should have been able to trust and her 11-year-old body isn't mature enough to bear the consequence of that betrayal. I'm pro-Melissa who's working two jobs just to make ends meet and has to choose between bringing another child into poverty or feeding the children she already has because her spouse walked out on her. I'm pro-Brittany who realizes that she is in no way financially, emotionally, or physically able to raise a child. I'm pro-Emily who went through IVF, ending up with SIX viable implanted eggs requiring selective reduction to ensure the safety of her and a SAFE number of fetuses. I'm pro-Jessica who is FINALLY getting the strength to get away from her physically abusive spouse only to find out that she is carrying the monster's child. I'm pro-Vanessa who went into her confirmation appointment after YEARS of trying to conceive only to hear silence where there should be a heartbeat. I'm pro-Lindsay who lost her virginity in her sophomore year with a broken condom and now has to choose whether to be a teenage mom or just a teenager. I'm pro-Courtney who just found out she's already 13 weeks along, but the egg never made it out of her fallopian tube so either she terminates the pregnancy or risks dying from internal bleeding. You can argue and say that I'm pro-choice all you want, but the truth is: I'm pro-life. Their lives. Women's lives. You don't get to pick and choose which scenarios should be accepted. It's not about which stories you don't agree with. It's about fighting for the women in the stories that you do agree with and the CHOICE that was made. Women's rights are meant to protect ALL women, regardless of their situation! #roevwade #prochoice #abortion #women #womensrights #mybody #mychoice #mybodymychoice Copied and pasted to share.
You can't. Just like we see in the COVID thread, you're not always going to be able to have a productive conversation with everyone.
Regardless of whether there is a religious element or not, I think it comes down to even just being able to have a dialogue and possessing some form of empathy rather than trying to beat the other side over the head with a stick.
I wonder how anti-abortionists feel about the mechanics of this law. Essentially turning any willing and eager private citizen into a bounty hunter of sorts.
I have no problem with being able to sue the provider, and DR. However it is asinine that they can sue anybody who drives her, or gives her money.
I agree, but what I was asking about was the part how any Joe-Blow can go and sue because a woman they no absolutely nothing about had (allegedly) and abortion. How do you feel about enforcement being put into the hands of each and every rando living in TX?
I think they will soon find that anyone can sue, but not anyone can win.
So far as I know, to win a civil suit you have to show that "you have been damaged". I don't see how someone can show that because someone else had an abortion that "they have been damaged".
Giving someone the right to sue doesn't mean they will win when and if they sue.
As part of an effort to show how the United States uses propaganda to influence the mindset of its citizens, a historical documentary recently aired by Russia's Channel One offered up what it said was a First World War poster portraying German soldiers as monsters who literally eat babies. One problem: It wasn't a soldier, it was the Soldier, and the poster is actually Team Fortress 2 fan art.
The show, which presumably came about as a result of rising tensions between the US and Russia, offered the poster as evidence of US efforts to demonize its enemies, "regardless of any logic or common sense," according to the International Business Times . "The American public had to firmly acknowledge that Germans were evil," the narrator says.
And the guy on the poster certain looks evil. "Soldiers eat babies. That's a fact," it states, before exhorting readers to join Team Demoman, a giveaway that clearly eluded the show's non-English-speaking creators. TJournal.ru picked up on it, however, and noted that it was actually created by DeviantArt user TankTaur for a Team Fortress 2 propaganda contest.
We weren't certain at first that this was real, but the image posted by TJournal carries the Channel One watermark, and even better, we also managed to track down the program on YouTube . It's in Russian, but you don't need to speak it to get it.
I agree, but what I was asking about was the part how any Joe-Blow can go and sue because a woman they no absolutely nothing about had (allegedly) and abortion. How do you feel about enforcement being put into the hands of each and every rando living in TX?
I don't have a problem with them being able to sue the DR or Clinic but IMO they should at least be citizens of Texas. I think it's BS that they can sue the woman, or her family, or others not involved with the abortion.I also noticed there is no clause for rape or incest which I don't like, and that there is no allowence fo the mothers health.
IMO yes, BUT I am OK with those exceptions. I know two women who were raped but kept their children and have loved and raised them. I also know that would be to much for many women to handle. I have also been against any abortion bans that don't have a exception for the womans health.
And there in lies the hypocrisy of those claiming "states rights". When a state creates a law where anyone in the country can sue someone for something they claim is a "state issue", they have just shown that it has nothing to do with simply the people within their own state.
And maybe the only logical choice depending on your location. And just think, even Mexico can get prescription drugs to its people cheaper than we can.
"Let's make something very clear: Rape is a crime," Abbott said while signing a major GOP election-reform bill. "And Texas will work tirelessly to make sure that we eliminate all rapists from the streets of Texas by aggressively going out and arresting them and prosecuting them and getting them off the streets."
He added: "So goal No. 1 in the state of Texas is to eliminate rape so that no woman, no person, will be a victim of it." The governor also said Texas had numerous organizations that support rape victims.
________
you conservatives are really taking the rhetoric to new levels. i thought it was supposed to mellow out with Trump gone. boy was i terribly mistaken.
It's interesting that we have such a broad spectrum of viewpoints and citizens in the USA who come from all sides of the political spectrum ... And there are well read, educated folks on both sides and edges ... But for certain, as a whole, there is a large mass who don't know their history, the history of others and who have definitely been indoctrinated to simply believe and parrot that America is the best nation on earth without any possible comprehension or appreciation of what other countries and cultures offer. To question that to many is simply un-American. It's a dynamicany friends in EU don't get ... They often don't get to see the deeply respectful and appreciative opinions which is a shame.
And it's equally odd/interesting to see how the GOP have championed and convinced so many poor/middle class that they represent low taxes and that any social programs or government health care like we see across Europe and 1st world nations is tantamount to communism and will hurt them when the truth is the opposite.
As to the topic, you would be one of the first hailing that life was found when we discover some amoeba on Mars or Venus or where ever...and you should.
I myself aren't pro abortion.. I'm pretty much pro life..
But, I don't think a bunch of old men should be deciding what's best for a woman.. That should be between her and her doctors. I'm not qualified to make that determination.
But the bigger question is this. Why is it we only try to restrict the rights of a woman but let the men go free.
Saw a meme on Facebook the other day,, Kinda hit home.
Something like:
A woman can sleep with 100 men in a year and still only bring one full term birth. A man can sleep with 100 women in a year and can cause 100 full term births,, Why do we only want to restrict the womans rights?
I don't frequent facebook all that often, but I'm actively seeking out distractions to put off starting a large task at work, and I stumbled on this. It's something that's been suggested by a quite a few on here, and something I 100% agree with.
For me, I'm generally against abortion (I do think there are circumstances where it is understandable, and beyond that I'm not going to sit there and tell a woman how things are going to work inside their own body).
"The unborn are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.
I don't frequent facebook all that often, but I'm actively seeking out distractions to put off starting a large task at work, and I stumbled on this. It's something that's been suggested by a quite a few on here, and something I 100% agree with.
For me, I'm generally against abortion (I do think there are circumstances where it is understandable, and beyond that I'm not going to sit there and tell a woman how things are going to work inside their own body).
"The unborn are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.
I've already mentioned my views on it being very similar to yours, and I think that's where I depart with the mainstream pro-life advocates. It's the double-speak of advocating to save the unborn with little thought given to the mother and child after the birth occurs. I think Abbott and the Texas legislature in general adopts that notion. On top of that, they also want to focus more on a beyond-draconian punitive measure.
A lot of people in my family embody the mainstream ideology, and I challenge them - often to my own personal detriment - as to what they think of a young girl who gets pregnant out of wedlock, or how they view someone who is destitute that accidentally becomes pregnant. We can't stigmatize people on one hand and call the child a blessing on the other hand. That dichotomy drives me crazy.
There is a lot of moral high ground with little action. For instance, I also challenge my family to tell me what they have done for crisis pregnancy centers or how they have actually devoted their time or resources to help pregnant mothers. Very little is done. I imagine they are a microcosm of the mainstream movement as a whole.
"Let's make something very clear: Rape is a crime," Abbott said while signing a major GOP election-reform bill. "And Texas will work tirelessly to make sure that we eliminate all rapists from the streets of Texas by aggressively going out and arresting them and prosecuting them and getting them off the streets."
He added: "So goal No. 1 in the state of Texas is to eliminate rape so that no woman, no person, will be a victim of it." The governor also said Texas had numerous organizations that support rape victims.
________
you conservatives are really taking the rhetoric to new levels. i thought it was supposed to mellow out with Trump gone. boy was i terribly mistaken.
He has a lot of work to do......
Texas ranked No. 15 most dangerous state for rape and sexual assault
That's exactly what I was thinking. Wow, great that he decided to do something about it.
I mean, do they not have a law on the books already to stop rapes? If they don't, then making news laws should absolutely help. They probably do, though... and lack of laws/punishment probably isn't the root of the problem here. How exactly are they going to "get all the rapists off the streets"?
"Let's make something very clear: Rape is a crime," Abbott said while signing a major GOP election-reform bill. "And Texas will work tirelessly to make sure that we eliminate all rapists from the streets of Texas by aggressively going out and arresting them and prosecuting them and getting them off the streets."
He added: "So goal No. 1 in the state of Texas is to eliminate rape so that no woman, no person, will be a victim of it." The governor also said Texas had numerous organizations that support rape victims.
________
you conservatives are really taking the rhetoric to new levels. i thought it was supposed to mellow out with Trump gone. boy was i terribly mistaken.
He has a lot of work to do......
Texas ranked No. 15 most dangerous state for rape and sexual assault
Explain that to the rape victims that become pregnant in Texas. You can't even bring yourself to man up and admit that what he said about rape was bat crap crazy. Take a seat.
And once they're born you can vote even more Republicans in who advocate cutting every social program to help most of those babies who are born to drug addicts, the very poor and even the homeless.
You know, once they're born to hell with them, right? You're not pro life, you're pro birth. Once they're born you don't give a damn about them.
"Let's make something very clear: Rape is a crime," Abbott said while signing a major GOP election-reform bill. "And Texas will work tirelessly to make sure that we eliminate all rapists from the streets of Texas by aggressively going out and arresting them and prosecuting them and getting them off the streets."
He added: "So goal No. 1 in the state of Texas is to eliminate rape so that no woman, no person, will be a victim of it." The governor also said Texas had numerous organizations that support rape victims.
________
you conservatives are really taking the rhetoric to new levels. i thought it was supposed to mellow out with Trump gone. boy was i terribly mistaken.
He has a lot of work to do......
Texas ranked No. 15 most dangerous state for rape and sexual assault
Well he has sure stopped quite a few murders now with this new law!!!
I'd actually argue that he didn't. This law empowers busybody Texans to sue, but only after the fact. It doesn't make it harder to get an abortion, just gives Karens a method to potentially extract damages from someone they've never met.
And once they're born you can vote even more Republicans in who advocate cutting every social program to help most of those babies who are born to drug addicts, the very poor and even the homeless.
You know, once they're born to hell with them, right? You're not pro life, you're pro birth. Once they're born you don't give a damn about them.
Social programs do not work. Never have and never will. They just create a dependent society.
So let me ask you - who quotes the bible in his signature - a homeless teenage woman is raped and impregnated. Let's presume abortion is illegal. Is your solution to say "Thanks for having the baby. Best of luck!"?
So let me ask you - who quotes the bible in his signature - a homeless teenage woman is raped and impregnated. Let's presume abortion is illegal. Is your solution to say "Thanks for having the baby. Best of luck!"?
Adoption would be the best outcome. The child did nothing wrong and does not deserve to be punished. Maybe giving a child up to some loving parents that want a baby is the best outcome for all.
So just let these children do without after they're born.
Like I said, there isn't a pro life bone in your body. Only pro birth. Once they're born you don't give a damn.
So legalizing murder is your answer???? If a baby is unwanted then do what is necessary before engaging in the act that produces babies. If you cannot take the proper precautions and have a baby. Then support your child or give it up for adoption. Murder is not the answer.
However, how about the medical bills, and who exactly is going to facilitate the adoptions? She is going to be in a very rough state, mentally, in that scenario. No affording grief counseling? Pregnancy, in and of itself, is immensely challenging, beyond my comprehension. I know that I saw my wife go through it twice. No support system? Just, hey, have a healthy baby, and then someone will take it from you and you can be on your way...
If you want to be a pro-life advocate - which I am for the most part - you have to realize how that ripples into other areas of social politics.
So let me ask you - who quotes the bible in his signature - a homeless teenage woman is raped and impregnated. Let's presume abortion is illegal. Is your solution to say "Thanks for having the baby. Best of luck!"?
Adoption would be the best outcome. The child did nothing wrong and does not deserve to be punished. Maybe giving a child up to some loving parents that want a baby is the best outcome for all.
So when it is a clump of cells you are going to make the woman turn it into a baby. Now that it is baby and she has an emotional attachment you are going to it away.
i love how adoption is the go to response on this issue. as if it isnt hard as hell to adopt, or the fact that our foster care system is a complete joke.
A catastrophe’: More than 200 kids sleeping in CPS offices as need for foster care intensifies
AUSTIN (KXAN) — More than 200 children slept in state offices for multiple nights in March of this year as the “capacity crisis” in the Texas foster care system continues to worsen.
According to data from the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, during February 2020 — before the coronavirus began to spread in Texas communities — 34 children spent two or more nights sleeping in DFPS offices. By March 2021, that number had increased by nearly seven times, with 237 kids sleeping in offices.
Scott Lundy, CEO of Arrow Child and Family Ministries, said he has worked in the child welfare system for three decades. He called 2020 the “most challenging year” of his career.
‘It’s a catastrophe’
In short, there aren’t enough beds to accommodate every child entering the foster care system, and Lundy said it’s reaching the level of a “catastrophe.”
“The capacity crisis that we have right now is the worst that I’ve ever seen,” Lundy said.
A spokesperson for DFPS said providers have been “profoundly affected by the pandemic and more recently by February’s winter storm.” They explained foster care providers have struggled to recruit and train foster families willing to open their homes, while residential treatment centers have faced similar struggles with retaining qualified staff.
BACKGROUND: Judge orders Texas to pay daily fines until foster care problems are fixed According to state data, Texas gained 393 beds for children in Fiscal Year 2020 but lost 540 beds. So far in FY 2021, we’ve already lost 696 beds, while only gaining 112.
“DFPS is constantly working with providers to bring more capacity online, while prioritizing child safety over sheer numbers of beds,” the spokesperson said.
Lundy said, “It takes a long time to build capacity, but you can lose it overnight.”
He and his wife fostered and ultimately adopted three children himself.
“I can’t imagine my kids spending time in an office — sleeping there and eating there,” he said. “There’s no laundry facilities. They are eating out the whole time. There’s not a lot for them to do, and recreation, or things that, that would be normal for a child.”
Federal lawsuit
However, problems in the Texas foster care system began long before the pandemic. A decades-long federal lawsuit has drawn attention to stories of abuse, neglect and mounting caseload sizes.
In 2015, Judge Janis Jack ruled the Texas foster care system was broken and ordered the state to make changes, including around the clock supervision by adults who are awake for foster children in a group setting. Almost five years later, in 2019, it was found that DFPS had not implemented her orders. By September 2020, state officials were again warned that they could be held in contempt of court if reforms weren’t implemented.
Right now, the state is still making changes and dealing with the fallout from the lawsuit.
MORE: Fifth Circuit tells Texas to fix foster care system, removes other requirements In fact, at the end of last year DFPS asked the legislature for $38 million to comply with the lawsuit. The Texas Health and Human Services Commission, which is also named in the lawsuit, requested $37 million to cover costs over the same period.
Debbie Sceroler, Senior Director for foster care and adoption at Bucker, said the pandemic couldn’t have come at a worse time, with the foster care system already in this “state of reform.”
She explained that legislation a few years back allowed Texas to transition Community Based Care model, where local communities organize to provide services rather than the traditional model run entirely by the state. Still, the new data shows reforms are slow-moving.
“We’ve always had more children coming into care, than we do families,” she said. “I think awareness is definitely the first thing we need.”
Buckner Children and Family Services recruits and licenses foster homes in Texas.
They’ve helped connect foster parents like Buck and Stephanie Baskin with kids in-need of a temporary home, — sometimes even just for a short time while a child’s case is reviewed, before the child is placed back with family or with adoptive parents.
“It is the hardest, best thing we’ve ever done,” Stephanie said, recalling the more than 15 foster children they’ve welcomed into their home in Mesquite over the last 11 years.
“You realize the need that’s there, and you just continue on,” Buck said. “They’ll be like, ‘Oh, y’all are so special. How do you do it?’ We are not special — we just jumped in and did it.”
Buckner also offer provide preventative services through their Family Hope Center, to help families stay together and avoid falling into the foster care system.
MORE: Nonprofit provides housing for foster kids sleeping in Texas CPS offices At the end of April, after hearing about the increasing numbers of children staying in state offices, they launched a partnership with the state to provide a more home-like environment for more than 30 at-risk children across the state — opening up campus foster cottages in six different cities. Each home will house up to four children and are located in Dallas, Beaumont, Lubbock, Midland, and Mission in the Rio Grande Valley.
“So, basically we provide the facility and oversee the safety of the facility, and CPS resumes responsibility of the children that stay there. This provides them a more home-like environment,” she said, noting it’s a far better option than a state office.
“Food and activities and games and hygiene products and just the ability to be outdoors and be in a home until permanency can be found. This is a temporary solution. We know children will come and go.”
Legislative efforts at long-term solutions
Meanwhile, several efforts at the State Capitol are aimed at providing more long-term solutions and funding.
Kate Murphy, Senior Child Welfare Policy Associate with the group Texans Care for Children, said some of the most important legislative pushes are the ones that work to implement the Family First Prevention Services Act — federal legislation passed in 2018.
“It really shifted a lot of things for state child welfare system,” she explained. “It restructured how the feds are going to pay for foster care, and it opened up new funding for prevention services that can keep kids out of foster care in the first place.”
She explained that several pieces of the 2022-2023 state budget would allocate funding to things like those prevention services, as well as provider rates.
“We know that we need to support foster care providers right now, especially the ones that are doing life-saving work for kids and taking care of our kids. We want to make sure they have the resources to do that well,” Murphy said.
She also mentioned two bills other to watch with “really, really good stuff for kids” — SB 1896 and SB 1575 — both proposed by Senator Lois Kolkhorst.
Still, Murphy thinks Texas needs to have a long-term vision of how to take care of families, rather than focusing on “putting out this fire.” That will take “sustained interest” on behalf of lawmakers.
“We need them to remember that passing the law is just the beginning,” she said.
Who are the children sleeping in offices?
According to DFPS, it has proved more difficult to find placements for older teens who have complex behavioral or psychological needs, and therefore need specialized care.
The number of children without placements began to increase toward the end of 2020 and into 2021 (Graphic and data provided by the Department of Family and Protective Services) Oftentimes, these children need care in a residential living or treatment facility, which Sceroler said have faced higher levels of scrutiny and increased costs in recent years. Buckner does not operate any of these types of facilities, but their leadership is aware that many are closing.
Lundy echoed that fact, saying some of these closures — and part of the capacity crisis, in general — was due to increased regulation and oversight following the federal lawsuit.
“How do we support these mission-driven organizations at taking care of kids better, and better, and better,” he said. “Instead of just fining them?”
Arrow Child and Family Ministries instead operates a program called Treatment Foster Care, in order to get “highly traumatized, very complex youth” out of residential centers and psych hospitals and into homes. To be a part of the program, one parent must become a member of their clinical team, undergo extensive training and even agree to stay home with the kids involved.
Still, he said they’ve seen the success rate nearly double for children in the program — 73% compared to less than 30% for similar children in a residential facility or other institutionalized environment.
“There’s not a kid’s issue and not a child’s trauma that can’t be healed better in a family,” he said.
And once they're born you can vote even more Republicans in who advocate cutting every social program to help most of those babies who are born to drug addicts, the very poor and even the homeless.
You know, once they're born to hell with them, right? You're not pro life, you're pro birth. Once they're born you don't give a damn about them.
Social programs do not work. Never have and never will. They just create a dependent society.
Do you mean Medicare, Social Security don't work? Are you saying that feeding homeless doesn't work.. How about helping homeless vets... Yeah, none of that work.
I guess you the roads you drive on don't work.. the Bridges don't work..
So let me ask you - who quotes the bible in his signature - a homeless teenage woman is raped and impregnated. Let's presume abortion is illegal. Is your solution to say "Thanks for having the baby. Best of luck!"?
Adoption would be the best outcome. The child did nothing wrong and does not deserve to be punished. Maybe giving a child up to some loving parents that want a baby is the best outcome for all.
So when it is a clump of cells you are going to make the woman turn it into a baby. Now that it is baby and she has an emotional attachment you are going to it away.
Way to double down on the hatred of women.
She could keep the child if she wants no one is forcing her to give it up. No hatred of women just the child did nothing wrong either.
Ahhhh the old ‘keep the unwanted baby’ scenario. Nothing like being raise by someone that doesn’t want you/can’t afford you/can’t provide for you emotionally.
Ahhhh the old ‘keep the unwanted baby’ scenario. Nothing like being raise by someone that doesn’t want you/can’t afford you/can’t provide for you emotionally.
So let me ask you - who quotes the bible in his signature - a homeless teenage woman is raped and impregnated. Let's presume abortion is illegal. Is your solution to say "Thanks for having the baby. Best of luck!"?
Adoption would be the best outcome. The child did nothing wrong and does not deserve to be punished. Maybe giving a child up to some loving parents that want a baby is the best outcome for all.
So when it is a clump of cells you are going to make the woman turn it into a baby. Now that it is baby and she has an emotional attachment you are going to it away.
Way to double down on the hatred of women.
She could keep the child if she wants no one is forcing her to give it up. No hatred of women just the child did nothing wrong either.
So she keeps the child but can't feed him/her. She can't get a job because she can't afford childcare. But god forbid we offer free child care. How dare you even suggest that you socialist. And don't have programs to provide food for the hungry mother and child, you are making them dependent on the system you communist.
Just a couple non-emotional comments on the topic.
I'm generally very much a 'we need as little govt in our lives as possible' kind of person... but in situations like this, where things just aren't getting done and citizens (children, no less) are suffering, I think it's government's (local, state, federal, in that order) responsibility/mandate to acknowledge the situation and step in to correct it. With the foster and adoption system being such a dumpster fire for so long, I think it makes perfect sense for government to come in and take an even more hands-on approach to making sure these programs are doing what they're supposed to be doing.
IMO (and to a couple other posters' points right above this one) you gotta get this stuff ironed out before you launch a crusade like the TX governor just did.
The problem is in actuality the fact that this hasn't been fixed. It's a sad reflection on our society. To me the saddest part is that they wish to force people to have babies who are not ready. They promote "children having children" and then say they are thinking about the children. They must be talking about babies and not really children since they wish to force children to give birth.
On top of all that we actually have some who want to force children to have children and helping them after they give birth is something we shouldn't do. It's a prime example of mans inhumanity to man. Or mans inhumanity to babies as it were.
I agree with you 100%. And the fact that there is no exemption for incest and rape in this legislation is downright mental cruelty to women.
I mean what kind of idiots response to that is, "Well, we'll just end rape"?
I believe if you're going to force the poor and children to give birth, you must first put in place the mechanisms with which these babies can and will be cared for and given a decent chance to succeed.
If not they're simply perpetuating the cycle of poverty on to the next generation. They're perpetuating an increasing amount of public assistance and dependence on the system they so vehemently claim to oppose.
I think one other thing that gets missed is that "devoting resources" does not always mean bigger government.
My wife, for instance, works for a non-profit organization that deals with homeless and the severely mentally ill. Often times the government will issue things like grants to private agencies based upon a community need. Agencies, like my wife's, have to submit competing bids regarding the costs, structure, and methodology they plan to implement in response to the government's need. Similar to how the government comes out and says "hey, industry, we need to design and build the next great missile targeting system, send us your designs and proposals."
I think the other thing that people don't consider is that there is going to be a "cost," so to speak. There will always be homeless people, people who are mentally ill, abandoned children, the impoverished, people who are down on their luck, etc. On one extreme, there's the concern that devoting too much resources creates a welfare state, but on the other extreme, if resources are nixed completely, that group of people still exists (unless you kill them all, of course). That can lead to higher homelessness, crime and civil unrest. Some might say, "Fine, throw them in jail." Well, that costs something, too, and it's not cheap.
So, to me, the sweet spot is finding that best value where you avoid excessive handouts, but also don't stick your head in the sand about a population of people that exist, or the fact that sometimes people are going to have a bad stint or two that really get them down.
My biggest point that I keep trying to get at in a lot of my discussions on this thread is that people who advocate against abortion often avoid or become obtuse when confronted with the contrary nature of taking a hard-line, fiscally conservative stance, which falls in line with the same thing you are calling out as well.
I pretty much completely agree with you (almost goes without saying, :-p
I'm almost at the point, though, where I'm not even worried about overspending on something like this. With how long adoption and foster services have been in their decrepit state, I'd be curious or even happy to see what these look like if they were over-funded.
Imagine my surprise to click on a thread about abortion and find an actual adult conversation going on.
Quote:
Often times the government will issue things like grants to private agencies based upon a community need. Agencies, like my wife's, have to submit competing bids regarding the costs, structure, and methodology they plan to implement in response to the government's need.
I'm a big fan of this approach because I think the private sector (or non-profits), with government funding and some general guidelines to follow, provides better, more efficient, more effective services than a bloated government agency.
Quote:
I think the other thing that people don't consider is that there is going to be a "cost," so to speak. There will always be homeless people, people who are mentally ill, abandoned children, the impoverished, people who are down on their luck, etc. On one extreme, there's the concern that devoting too much resources creates a welfare state, but on the other extreme, if resources are nixed completely, that group of people still exists (unless you kill them all, of course). That can lead to higher homelessness, crime and civil unrest. Some might say, "Fine, throw them in jail." Well, that costs something, too, and it's not cheap.
As the old saying goes, you can pay me now or pay me later.. but you will pay.
Getting a child reasonable nutrition and care, decent medical care, decent education, guidance, and mentorship greatly increases the likelihood that the child will grow into a productive adult member of society and actually become a contributor who does good work and pays taxes and raises healthy children of their own, thus breaking the cycle... denying the child those basic necessities greatly increases the chances they will become homeless, unemployed, criminals, who bring children into the world that they now can't care for, etc, thus repeating the cycle.... and they will continue the cycle of people who cost the taxpayers their entire lives..
We have to start looking at providing for children as an investment and not an expense.
Feeding the homeless doesn't work. They are just hungry again tomorrow. All you are doing is making them dependent on food.
I get it, you'd just let them starve.. Feeding them is a means to an end.. It's the starting point.. There are plenty of programs out there to assist them in pulling themselves up. But hey,, what the hell, cut funding.. Makes sense to me
What if they were homeless vets,,, would you not feed them?
Gun rights are a part of the US Constitution and is very specifically noted...as in right #2...abortion rights are not part of the Constitution. You are comparing apples with lugnuts.
Abortion is a states-rights issue...always has been as abortion 'rights' is no where to be found in the US Constitution..
According to that logic, none of us should have any freedoms at all. You know, since the word “freedom” doesn’t exist in our constitution.
"Let's make something very clear: Rape is a crime," Abbott said while signing a major GOP election-reform bill. "And Texas will work tirelessly to make sure that we eliminate all rapists from the streets of Texas by aggressively going out and arresting them and prosecuting them and getting them off the streets."
He added: "So goal No. 1 in the state of Texas is to eliminate rape so that no woman, no person, will be a victim of it." The governor also said Texas had numerous organizations that support rape victims.
________
you conservatives are really taking the rhetoric to new levels. i thought it was supposed to mellow out with Trump gone. boy was i terribly mistaken.
I’m betting the jail time for rape will be less than the rape victim for having an abortion in Texas.
Gun rights are a part of the US Constitution and is very specifically noted...as in right #2...abortion rights are not part of the Constitution. You are comparing apples with lugnuts.
Abortion is a states-rights issue...always has been as abortion 'rights' is no where to be found in the US Constitution..
According to that logic, none of us should have any freedoms at all. You know, since the word “freedom” doesn’t exist in our constitution.
He doesn't seem to understand that Roe Versus Wade being decided on in 1973 found that banned state abortions were unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. Which means abortions are actually protected under the 14th amendment of the constitution.
southpaw @nycsouthpaw S.B. 8 ENJOINED! “This Court will not sanction one more day of this offensive deprivation of such an important right.” https://justsecurity.org/wp-content/upl
NO. There is one side that doesn't understand when they lose. RvW is established precedent and the law of the land. GOPers want to keep refighting every battle they lose. Hell half of them are still trying to re-fight the civil war.
You do realize that some Republicans support abortion, and some Dems are against it right?
Most Dems wouldn't give up the fight when abortion was illegal just the same way some Republicans won't give it up now. Neither side will give up because as I said earlier both sides are passionate about this subject.
NO. There is one side that doesn't understand when they lose. RvW is established precedent and the law of the land. GOPers want to keep refighting every battle they lose. Hell half of them are still trying to re-fight the civil war.
You know that your argument here is flawed. GM is right. Slavery was the law of the land, too, but people obviously fought to amend the Constitution, which is obviously the supreme law of the land.
Everyone wants to keep fighting for their beliefs. I can't think of one movement, group or party that has had one core, important issue to them who lost a Supreme Court or other political battle and then simply said "Welp, I guess we're done, guys."
Your bias and passion (which I respect) on this issue is clouding your objectivity.
Difference being a woman's right to choose to make decisions about her own body and life is how it should be. Oddly, both sides will acknowledge that, but one side thinks their personal beliefs should override the rights of others who believe differently. If it were truly about the health and welfare of the unborn, you would see the same passion from the right in making sure all these kids have what they need to get a good start in life.... But nah, how they get along the next 18 years until adulthood is something else the right likes to completely ignore and often criticize those in poverty without mercy.
What this is not my old friend is a situation where both sides have opposite values, but both have merit. No, the moral conviction to these ideals on the right simply don't hold up to scrutiny.
Nobody is forcing anyone to get an abortion, but the right would force all women to have babies rather they want to or not in a world that is already overpopulated... we are too far apart we are on this one GM.
I very much agree with you when it comes to the hypocrisy seen by many on the Republican side. If you do want to be pro-life, there should be a commitment to the child after birth, like you say. That's a huge contradiction.
Where I depart is boiling the argument simply down simply to a woman choosing to make decisions about her own body. I believe the whole crux of the argument is whether it is a woman doing something to her body or a woman doing something to someone else's body. It boils down to the definition of a human being - which is where I've seen the most impassioned arguments made by both sides...basically whether it's a "group of cells" or a "human life."
IIRC, the Court in Roe punted on the issue of defining a human being, which has dragged the argument out today.
Your entire list are things that are illegal in our country. The SCOTUS gave women the right to an abortion under Roe vs Wade. Until that changes, women do have the right to an abortion under the law of the land.
Difference being a woman's right to choose to make decisions about her own body and life is how it should be.
110 percent bullcrap my friend. Can A WOMAN DRIVE 80 IN A 25 MPH ZONE.
Can she walk down the street shooting up herion? Snorting coke.
Can she go to the grocery store naked?
Can she drive without a seat belt?
Can she attend School without getting vaccinated?
The list goes on, and on, and on about the things we in this country are NOT free to do.
Is there a road in her thing that she would have to worry about speed limits? She can do all of that, but she would be breaking MINOR laws. Making a decision to rather to keep or abort is punishment enough in most cases. You know I like you GM and always try my best to treat you good and get along... but we couldn't be farther apart on this, and I HATE YOUR POV ON THIS SUBJECT. It's not that you don't have a right to express your feelings, but you have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body OR ANYTHING INSIDE IT! Would you make her keep a cancerous tumor that was going to ruin her life? Nope. But that lump of cells zygote means more to you than her completely... You gonna take care of that kid until it's 18? Feed it? Cloth it? Make sure it gets a good education? No? Then you have no damn right to say a damn thing.
A woman getting an abortion is legal. You gave me talking points that were all illegal. But your ilk thinks they have the right to stop her from doing something y'all don't like, that's 100% legal without fighting to change the law of the land. This snake in the grass ish in Texas is going to topple that house of cards very soon. Trump's McConnell packed conservative court will have to stand behind the RvW precedent or risk dems packing the court to balance it. You are fooling yourself if you think you will ever win this one.
People like to make stupid comparisons. In the first place you are over four times less likely to get covid if you're vaccinated. Secondly if you do get it, the time of which you can spread it is much shorter. 90% of the deaths are of the unvaccinated. Like I just said in another thread, people just like to throw crap against the wall to see what will stick.
You know I like you GM and always try my best to treat you good and get along... but we couldn't be farther apart on this, and I HATE YOUR POV ON THIS SUBJECT. It's not that you don't have a right to express your feelings, but you have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body OR ANYTHING INSIDE IT! Would you make her keep a cancerous tumor that was going to ruin her life? Nope. But that lump of cells zygote means more to you than her completely... You gonna take care of that kid until it's 18? Feed it? Cloth it? Make sure it gets a good education? No? Then you have no damn right to say a damn thing.
No problem OldC. We disagree on this subject and probably always will. You hate my POV on this subject and I hate yours. No biggie IMO. We agree on some things ad we disagree on others just like everybody else on this planet we are not going to see eye to eye on everything. Hell our biggest difference of opinion on this is that I see a baby being murdered, slaughtered, killed, while you see that baby as a clump of cells that you compare to cancer. To me that's just as disgusting as somebody saying it's OK to murder your 1 week old child, or 1 month old child, or 10 year old child, all of which you as well as I are 100 percent against.
BTW if you say the baby is just a "lump of cells" why can people be charged with “fetal homicide” if most states if they cause the death of the baby/cells?
Now as for taking care of "That kid" as you called him/her I have said over and over on these boards I am all for paying taxes to support programs to help these children and their families.
Quote:
A woman getting an abortion is legal.
In what state under what conditions. Hell the Texas abortion situation changes by the week now. Two months ago abortions were legal. Then they were illegal as of Sept 1st 2021 past the 6th week of pregnancy. Then it was illegal again for less than 48 hours. Now it's illegal again as of last night.
Abortion restrictions very between the states so what is legal in some states is illegal in others.
GM you don’t have to get an abortion if you don’t want.
That only effects you.
When you say that you want to decide for someone else what their choice should you are passing judgement on another.
A person should be responsive for their own decision and the consequences that it has.
It like telling a woman that she can’t vote because she is a woman. That only took 150 years and a constitutional amendment to fix.
You either believe that people are created equal or you don’t. It’s tough to follow through.
If people are created equal why can't the man demand the baby be aborted if he doesn't want to be bothered raising or paying for it just like the woman? Why can't he raise it on his own if the woman doesn't want it? Are you saying the woman should have rights that men don't have?
My solution is the same way I feel about the Democrats Build Back Better bill. Don't tell me you'll figure out how to pay for it later. Figure out how you're going to pay for it and care for these children first. That is the one thing that could sway my opinion on abortion.
I think you know that my feelings on a personal level do not support abortion. I just sit back and watch the majority of Republican politicians act as though they take some moral high ground by railing against abortion while at the same time giving no solution on how to care for these children. No solution in regards to helping educate these children. Actually railing against social programs that would help them.
As we saw in another thread, anything that helps those on the lowest socioeconomic scale of working class people is now being called "welfare handouts". That term used to be reserved only for people who didn't or wouldn't work.
I've just seen both parties use the "let's do it now and we'll fix it later" method. I've never seen it turn out well.
You know I like you GM and always try my best to treat you good and get along... but we couldn't be farther apart on this, and I HATE YOUR POV ON THIS SUBJECT. It's not that you don't have a right to express your feelings, but you have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body OR ANYTHING INSIDE IT! Would you make her keep a cancerous tumor that was going to ruin her life? Nope. But that lump of cells zygote means more to you than her completely... You gonna take care of that kid until it's 18? Feed it? Cloth it? Make sure it gets a good education? No? Then you have no damn right to say a damn thing.
No problem OldC. We disagree on this subject and probably always will. You hate my POV on this subject and I hate yours. No biggie IMO. We agree on some things ad we disagree on others just like everybody else on this planet we are not going to see eye to eye on everything. Hell our biggest difference of opinion on this is that I see a baby being murdered, slaughtered, killed, while you see that baby as a clump of cells that you compare to cancer. To me that's just as disgusting as somebody saying it's OK to murder your 1 week old child, or 1 month old child, or 10 year old child, all of which you as well as I are 100 percent against.
BTW if you say the baby is just a "lump of cells" why can people be charged with “fetal homicide” if most states if they cause the death of the baby/cells?
Now as for taking care of "That kid" as you called him/her I have said over and over on these boards I am all for paying taxes to support programs to help these children and their families.
Quote:
A woman getting an abortion is legal.
In what state under what conditions. Hell the Texas abortion situation changes by the week now. Two months ago abortions were legal. Then they were illegal as of Sept 1st 2021 past the 6th week of pregnancy. Then it was illegal again for less than 48 hours. Now it's illegal again as of last night.
Abortion restrictions very between the states so what is legal in some states is illegal in others.
RvW has been the law of the land since the precedent was set. Therefore, at the federal level abortion is and has been legal. But GOPers have been trying to chip away at that for years and they are almost there in their minds. Whereas the left says and means NEVER AGAIN will it be illegal.
Quote:
BTW if you say the baby is just a "lump of cells" why can people be charged with “fetal homicide” if most states if they cause the death of the baby/cells?
Republican laws.
Quote:
In what state under what conditions. Hell the Texas abortion situation changes by the week now. Two months ago abortions were legal. Then they were illegal as of Sept 1st 2021 past the 6th week of pregnancy. Then it was illegal again for less than 48 hours. Now it's illegal again as of last night.
Abortion restrictions very between the states so what is legal in some states is illegal in others.
Just minutes after it became clear that the Supreme Court was not issuing an opinion on Texas' abortion law Monday morning – when many thought it might – Democrats attacked the justices for failing to take action in the case, calling once again for the court to be packed.
"The Supreme Court has allowed Texas’s abhorrent anti-abortion law to remain in effect for 83 days," Demand Justice, a pro-court-packing organization run by former Obama administration staffers, tweeted. "We cannot keep waiting for this Court to act in the interests of the American people - it’s time to #ExpandTheCourt."
Bah.... Peaceful patriots, you over-reacting drama gueen....
Did you actually see the news footage that day? Trump flags wafting on gentle breezes, 'patriots' and police arm-in-arm. It was a love fest. What's a little bear spray among friends?
