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

That doesn't make sense. Fetuses rarely abort themselves. Other stages of life, zygotes, embryos call it quits early. That's what the study shows. Junkies make their own decisions but even that is impaired by addiction.

 

You can only limit abortion Within the parameters set by R v W, which the new Texas law violates.

 

should not be infringed
sound familiar ? yet we highly restrict that right

 

I believe by law that changes from state to state but I don't think there are any that allow one after 24 weeks. Texas is now 6 weeks. Huge difference in development.
Never said it wasn't human. VIABLE human is something different.

 

Different subject so not relevant.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
WHY an exception for rape ?????

GoodGAWD...it's a simple question....why are you at a loss for words now ?


So you do not believe in making an exception for a rape victim but want her PUNISHED for being raped...OK, I got it...



No, I am not OK with destroying women's right to bodily autonomy.

NOW I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION WHY CAN'T YOU ANSWER MINE?????????????




That is what we were discussing....if you can't answer those inconvenient questions then just say so


So you do not believe in making an exception for a rape victim but want her PUNISHED for being raped...????



So you do NOT want an exception for rape?

Then you want a raped woman to be punished more than the rapist.....pathetic...

Why should a woman pay for a crime a man commits?

That is exactly what happens if a raped woman can't get an abortion....Radical Muslims ALSO want women punished for being raped..

 

I'm talking more about actual viability not what the law says. Laws don't dictate medical science

I understand.

Why is it okay to kill it before it's viable on its own?

 

1) Unless the woman was raped, then she CHOSE to risk a pregnancy and thus birth (since one can't happen without the other). There is no force involved at all. All her power and autonomy was exercised in that moment. You are trying to interfere with the natural outcome of that freely made choice.

2) Again, here you are claiming women are not in control of their own bodies. Did she, or did she not .. choose to chance a pregnancy? If she wasn't raped, then she made that choice as a grown adult. Anything you do to either deny her that choice, or to interfere in the results of that choice, are a denial of her autonomy.

3) When you insist that women can't be expected to make decisions for themselves (and therefore must be relieved of the consequences of their decisions - as though they're idiots or small children), you are indeed meddling. If the Govt and 'society' stayed out of womens' fertility, there would be no abortions, period. The provision of abortions is an interference with the cause/effect processes of nature. Which do you want?

 

There are some here who think men should have the power to decide what happens to her body.

 

I know. Heck, some are even suggesting (in thinly veiled terms only) that women are too stupid to manage their own bodies.

 

Really, that's the only argument you could find? Rape and violence?

How about we stick to the vast majority of abortions - which are not a result of either.

 

Why aren't people calling and claiming that the politicians, ministers, sheriffs, judges, police chiefs, and DAs wives and daughters are having abortions? The phone lines should be swamped with such calls. People need to get busty and start calling in those reports.

 

I don't think women or anybody should be victims of rape but two wrongs don't make a right.

 

Excellent news.

 

It would be wrong for them to vote for drafting people to war if women are excluded. This won't be an issue in the forseeable future since women have significantly less political power than men.

Yeah and should be responsible for things it tries to remedy.

1) Risking a pregnancy does not mean risking birth since pregnancy can be terminated. Birth from pregnancy can only be happened if the woman is willing to give birth or in TX, government forced the woman to give birth.

There's no such thing as "all her power was exercised in that moment." She should always have the power and control over her body.

2) Pregnancy is one thing. Giving birth is another. While the latter cannot happen without the former, the latter does not have to the only end - unless forced to. Having control over one's body is not just limited to one thing. If a pregnant woman wants to terminate birth but government forbids her, the woman does not have control over her own body. And the government should be responsible for forcing birth.

3) I never said women can't be "expected" to make decision for themselves. What the heck are you talking about? If a woman wants to terminate pregnancy and government says no. That's meddling.

 

When a person is charged with murder, doesn't the specific name of the victim have to be provided? Does a fetus have a specific name and identifying characteristics?

 

So, in the future if women want to avoid pregnancy they will have to do a vaginal flush after sex using bleach followed up with an uv dildo lamp and a daily ivermectin pill.

 

LOL...... It is better just to avoid sex altogether. Heck....the world is overpopulated as it is..

 

Sex dolls are becoming more sophisticated.

 

There ya go..

Wait until sex dolls begin t have "rights"

 

Texas politicians don't believe in civil and human rights.

 

Now you're just being ridiculous.

How about civil rights for the unborn?
Yeah, maybe 6 weeks is a little early, but on the other hand it's ridiculous how several states have opened up the door to abortion at any stage of pregnancy, with their new laws in the past couple of years.

 

True.,,,,,,,but they are crazy enough to create some ......(for sex dolls tha tis)

 

Yet somehow, they won't be able to avoid doing the only thing which can cause a pregnancy?

An interesting future you envision for us, guy. Compulsory vaginal sex, apparently.

 

1) You flat out contradicted yourself. Which is it? She has full power and responsibility - or she doesn't? Make up your mind.

2) And yet no one gave birth who wasn't pregnant. And exactly my point, having control is not just over one thing - when you exercise that control in the only moment which can produce all the rest, you are covering multiple things. Meantime, once again, if she chose to engage in the one activity which can produce a pregnancy, then she was not forced. Unless you think women don't choose sex? Maybe you think only men can or should make that choice?

3) But you are very clearly NOT accepting that women make a clear and free choice, when they do that which can result in a pregnancy. You are suggesting they somehow don't know what they're doing, or that they can't be trusted to understand cause/effect. And trying to remove the effect part of that equation IS meddling.