Texas 6-week abortion ban takes effect after Supreme Court inaction

LARCs are very expensive - yes cheaper in the long run -maybe and not every woman can afford an IUD or implant

I loved this site because it also lays out an alternative plan to abortion that is workable and more importantly will reduce the abortion rate whilst still empowering and protecting women

https://www.astho.org/LARC-Fact-Sheet/

 

Not the one making the tip. They just make the tip and the Texas government does the work for them. what a great deal

 

Yes but many of the alternative ways of having sex are also frowned on by the republicans

 

If abstinence worked there would not be seven billion people on this planet

Ask Catholic priests how easy it is to “avoid” sex

 

There’s a sinister brilliance to the way this whole thing has gone down. TX designed an abortion prohibition whose dystopian, crowdsourced enforcement mechanism gave conservative courts a pretext not to enjoin it despite its conflict with Roe. And the SC has made Roe momentarily useless without sparking the nationwide response that would have come from overturning it outright. For For Repubs, now that the dog has caught the car, they may face a fierce national backlash to the subversion of Roe.

 

Sorry but that reminds me of the old joke about the Australian politician………

 

I don't come at this from a religious angle. I come at this from a scientific one. The reality is we exist at the moment of creation. That's when we start the process of growing into a full grown adult. A process that takes 25 years to complete.

 

No that is two weeks out - gestational age is two weeks in advance of embryonic age because gestation is calculated from the woman’s last period whereas embryonic age is calculated from conception - usually two weeks after the woman’s last period

so, a six week old foetus actually looks like the first picture shown on the Carnegie chart below

 

If it's not human and not alive, how does it grow and develop?

 

Then instead of abstinence - which has been proven to be spectacularly ineffective basically because people will be people - why not advocate for something that has been proven to be massively effective - making LARCS easily obtainable and affordable

it has the added bonus of empowering women AND destroying this idiotic argument that it is a woman fault because she had sex “the wrong way”

Of course we could always remove the problem altogether and have every male give a sperm donation at puberty before sterilising him. That way ALL pregnancies would be at the discretion of the consenting couple.

 

Wow, so they do have a bounty program. People spying on their citizens and informing the government is a bit too commie / sharia for my taste. That's what the East Germans were encouraged to do.

Yes, private citizens are tasked with enforcing the new Texas abortion law and could be awarded $10,000
https://www.abc10.com/article/news/...ward/536-9c0bef34-1fdd-494e-aaec-0b9dd66c5e87
One of those bills is Senate Bill 8 in Texas, colloquially known as the state’s “heartbeat bill.” Gov. Greg Abbott signed the bill in May and the law is set to go into effect on Sept. 1, 2021. Under the law, abortions are banned after a fetal heartbeat is detected, which can be as early as six weeks into a pregnancy.

On social media, tweets shared thousands of times said people who report abortion violations under the new law could get $10,000. Some called the potential $10,000 awards “abortion bounties.”

THE ANSWER

Yes, private citizens who successfully sue over violations under the new Texas abortion law will be awarded at least $10,000.

 

Did you READ my post?

 

The problem with the religious right is they are AbsaByGodLutely pro-life until the child is born. Then as far as they are concerned the mother and child can eat **** and die.

This, I'm sure, seems to be a fair and reasonable law to those on the religious right, but they are in the minority of AmeriCANs. There is a reason the Founding Fathers put this clause in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

One AmeriCANs religion should not affect the lives of another AmeriCAN. Anyone on the religious right is AbsaByGodLutely free to not have an abortion, and they are free to keep their *******n mouth shut about what other AmeriCANs believe

I don't really support this idea, but it would seem to me if you, and your religion, are going to force a woman to have a baby you, and your religion, should be forced to make sure that woman and baby have all they need to live comfortably.

What I do support is staying the **** out of other peoples business.

 

I have to agree, because what you say is certainly common sense.

I'm about as much a Right-Winger Nationalist Conservative as can be -- and as such, I treasure the right of a person to have freedom over his/her own body. And, although it can be argued that when a woman ALLOWS a growing human being, fetus, or whatever you want to call "it" to develop within her body for months, then that same growing human being, fetus, etc., has the right to become born and live!

Nevertheless, 'Roe v Wade' and a woman's "right to decide" has become the settled Law of the Land for 48 years, and I do predict that any political party that tries to inhibit a woman's total control over anything INSIDE her own body is flirting with election-year DISASTER!

Is there a 'middle-ground' in this somewhere? My opinion counts for NOTHING, it will be said, because I am male. So be it. Let the women decide, and let any and all consequences of those decisions be theirs....

 

You mean other than the fact Christians are BY FAR the most charitable group when it comes to children and single parents? Seems like they care about the baby more than you non religious people do after they’re born.

They spend their own money to help them. You want to spend other people’s money to do so.

 

I think you owe us a link to support your claim, but beyond that, if true, it still doesn't give "Christians" the right to force their beliefs on the rest of America. And, besides that, obviously, you didn't read for comprehension.

 

I'm disgusted by the way Texas has unleashed this work around law and I'm sickened by the women this will affect. It is one thing to be pro life and anti abortion, but it is quite another to put a bounty on the heads of anyone wanting an abortion and the people surrounding them. So I have donated and will continue to donate to fundtexaschoice.org. I put this here so that others may do the same if they choose.

 

Not even close to true lmao

 

You would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.......so off we go.
" not feeling guilt for what is clearly wrongdoing is by definition sociopathic so that's not an opinion it's a fact" Ok, so right here we pretty much have the whole thing in one sentence. The strawman fallacy is "clearly wrongdoing". That is making a false argument to take away from the argument that 95% of women don't feel regret or remorse on having an abortion. I don't think is wrongdoing, the population in general don't think it's wrong doing and the courts don't think it's wrong doing. You and others think is wrongdoing but that is simply your opinion based on emotion and logical fallacy because despite what you think and feel no one is killed in an abortion. The proper term is that the pregnancy is terminated. If someone was killed, that's a crime and you can correct me if I'm wrong but no one gets arrested for abortion no matter what your opinion is of the word "killed".
On your answer to post 154 you pilled one strawman on another without any counter arguments other than snide remarks but the really funny thing was your complete 180 on the use of logic.

 

Scoff all you want, you're the one looking foolish. I'm enjoying it.

 

It's the turbans isn't it? I knew it. I told them but they wouldn't listen.

 

What a sad outlook on life. Do you only have sex to create life? No, it's not rocket science but things happen and when they do a woman can take care of it. All legally. What's the problem?

 

That is not a scientific outlook. That's faux science to make an argument.

 

Hopefully, all of those "Disgruntled Bernie Peeps" from 2016 (who "sat it out" or voted for Jill Stein) are happy with their decision.

 

What in that sentence is "faux science"?