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

You are correct that the feckless GOP will suffer the election consequences of their War on Women in 2022 and 2024.

They will OBSTRUCT all attempts to legislate RvW in Congress thereby ensuring that it becomes a NATIONAL issue and that control of the SCrOTUS must be realigned.

The Law of Unintended Consequences has been triggered.

And yes, there is a MIDDLE ground as far as abortion is concerned.

Long Acting Reversible Contraceptives (LARCs) are 99% effective and studies have proven that they can REDUCE abortions by 40%. Providing LARC's free to every woman who is sexually active would result in abortion no longer being a political issue.

Just in case you need factual substantiation just look at the DROP in abortions AFTER Obamacare provided free contraception. LARC's are the most EFFECTIVE form of contraception so that will ensure a FURTHER reduction in abortions.

All it takes is the political will to make it happen and anyone who OBJECTS to LARC's is being a HYPOCRITE when they object to abortions but REFUSE to support effective contraception.

Are you on board with LARC's?

 

Your actions are ADMIRABLE, Pants.

 

PERSON is a LEGAL term.

A fetus is NOT a person per the Constitution.

Ergo NO person is "killed" during a medical abortion procedure.

What is IMMORAL is IMPOSING your theist "creation" believes on others in VIOLATION of their 1st Amendment RIGHTS.

FACTS matter!

 

When it comes to Gov DeathSentence that "additional ingredient" was probably something that normal people flush down the toilet due to the noxious odor it produces.

 

See the bold….I think someone needs some basic health education….

If you’re arguing they prevent implantation, then I ask….implantation of WHAT.?

 

IRONIC coming from the ANTI-MASKERS who don't care who gets killed in pursuit of their goals. Typical!

 

WRONG on ALL counts again!

Conservative Christians have abortions.

Since the implementation of "leftist" Obamacare abortions have CONSISTENTLY been BELOW one million per year.



You should THANK "leftists" for REDUCING the number of abortions for YOU.

 

Assbackwards!

The fetus is only REMOVED from the uterus the same way a tumor is removed from YOUR body.

What subsequently happens to the fetus or tumor has nothing to do with the person who had it removed.

What YOU are demanding is that I have the right to PREVENT you from having a tumor removed from YOUR body.

NOT removing that tumor might end up killing you.

Not removing the fetus might end up killing the woman.

Whose CHOICE is it remove YOUR tumor because YOU don't want to take the RISK that it will kill YOU?

Why are you DENYING women the SAME right to bodily autonomy that YOU have?

What gives YOU the RIGHT to FORCE a woman to take a RISK that YOU won't take yourself?

 

You TRIED and FAILED to teach ABSTINENCE!

WHY did you FAIL?

WHAT did you LEARN from your FAILURE?

 

I describe it how I see it and I am not going to use fancy sterilized words because my descriptions elicit an emotional response out of you.

seems the only logical point at which to say they start existing. They don't start existing before that point, and they don't start existing after that point they start developing to stage where they could be viable outside of the womb be on that point but in order to get there they had to start somewhere.

it's definitely killing it because it is alive.

I may be mistaken on what an IUD is I am a gay man so I don't have sex with women so I'm not familiar with all of the contraceptive methods. As I understand it it's some sort of barrier placed inside. I didn't think it aborted a fetus I thought it prevented conception. It's only birth control if it prevents conception anything after that is abortion.

 

As far as I can tell it's kind of a sneaky underhanded way to legalize abortion because they have the right to the privacy they have between their doctor even if their doctors aborting their pregnancy it's very specific and very odd.

It seems a very flimsy House of cards style ruling.

 

I'm not 'grasping' at anything. You were the one who said 'all human life'. Not me. If you don't believe all human life is sacred, don't say it. Instead just say what you mean. In this case that would appear to be something like some human lives are sacred, others are not or alternatively most but not all human lives are sacred. Something of that ilk anyway.

All I did was ask an obvious question based on your previously stated position (the one you apparently don't hold to now). Which was that all lives are sacred. And I did so for the purposes of clarification since logical analysis of the problem leads to one of two conclusions.

The first is that if all human life is sacred (your original position as stated by you) then by default you have to agree that Texas should abolish the death penalty.

The second is that all human life is not sacred (apparently your current position). If so then the divide between yourself and pro-abortionists is not one of absolutes but rather one of degree i.e. you and pro-abortionists are basically in agreement on the question of whether or or not its morally permissible to deliberately take a human life. You both think it is. Your really just arguing over which sub-set of human life can be morally/ethically terminated.

So perhaps your not that far apart after all.

Let me know if or when you finally decide what exactly your position is on this question, because you seem to be jumping about a bit.

 

The right to LIFE only comes into effect AT BIRTH!

Prior to that point there are NO RIGHTS as far as the fetus is concerned irrespective of being human.

What is SAD is that those are wailing about the "right to life for humans" don't GAF about the LIVES of those they EXPOSE to the Corona Virus or those that are KILLED by racist cops.

And just to put a cap on this "human life" nonsense a tumor is also human in that it is made up of the same cells as the rest of the human that it inhabits.

Why are you NOT supporting the "right to life" for human tumors?

Why don't they "deserve at least the most fundamental HUMAN rights"?

 

Another MASSIVE load of BOVINE EXCREMENT without any attempt at substantiation.

 

That is why people need to get busy on the phones and claim that the wives and daughters of politicians, ministers, judges, sheriffs, police chiefs, and DAs are having abortions. Get busy. If they don't investigate every report then people who do have abortions can use that as a defense.

 

Women can know what's like to be in war. Men can never know what it's like to be pregnant.

He couldn't, which is why he supports letting women themselves decide. He has a better position than men who think they should decide for women.

What damage are you talking about? If a driver crashes into another driver, that's on the first driver.
If a person robs another, that's on the person.

In both scenarios it's one person hurting another, different person. This is in no way comparable to women choosing to go through abortions themselves.

1) I didn't contradict myself.

2) It's irrelevant that no one can give birth without being pregnant first. This is not about the relation between pregnancy and birth but women's rights to their own bodies.

3) How am I not accepting or suggesting women don't know what they are doing or that they can't be trusted? You made a series of non-sensical arguments.
They of course know sex can lead to pregnancy, and pregnancy (most of the time) leads to birth. Women know this. Men know this. And? That's not even the point.
The point is women should have rights to their own bodies. Men, or the government, should not get to tell them "no, you can't do that to yourself." That is meddling.
I support letting women themselves decide. How is this me meddling? Stop making this dumb argument.

But we're past that in Texas. Instead of that absurd bounty for snitches, the money should go towards helping women raising the kids they are forced to give birth to.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, and women should have abortions as their last resort take care of the ones that slip through protection.
Or not, then government should bear the responsibility.

 

What people ?

What people ?

 

so?

 

If you don't know what I'm talking about you need to go back and read playing dumb play by yourself.

 

Didn't I already answered it in an earlier post?

 

No. The claim that you can't have an opinion on something because you don't experience that something is elitist bigotry.

I can have an opinion on anything I want.

 

That is all still a set of chemical reactions.

 

Only in your world are people who get convicted by four different juries considered innocent.

 

Lols so you acknowledge it IS a life the woman is murdering, but you assert it’s okay because a pregnant woman has “special rights” to murder that life as long as she does it within a certain time frame.

Not only is that absurdly preposterous, unfounded by ANY legal documentation and COMPLETELY insane... but your excuse as to why she has to stop makes no sense.

If your argument is it’s their body so they have the right to do as they please with it, why shouldn’t they be allowed to murder that life all the way up until it leaves her body? You’ve already acknowledged it’s a life shes murdering. So why does it matter if she takes that life at week 2 or month 9?