Bye-Bye, Roe

[ClydeR]

If you've watched the news in the last 12 hours, you know that an odd Texas law banning 95% of abortions has gone into effect. What confuses me is the way it happened. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in Austin, Texas, had a hearing scheduled for Monday, August 30, to consider the law, which had been placed on hold until then. For reasons that the court never explained, it sent out a notice on the night of Friday, August 27, cancelling the hearing for the following Monday. There was no explanation. Without the hearing or a ruling, the law would automatically go into effect. Then last night, the U.S. Supreme Court declined, without any comment, to intervene. The law is now in effect.

What does it mean? Why was it done in such an odd way? There is obviously some legal procedure that I fail to understand.

This excerpt from a New York Times article may shed some light..


Supreme Court precedents forbid states from banning abortion before fetal viability, the point at which fetuses can sustain life outside the womb, or about 22 to 24 weeks.

But the Texas law was drafted to make it difficult to challenge in court. Usually, a lawsuit seeking to block a law because it is unconstitutional would name state officials as defendants. But the Texas law bars state officials from enforcing it and instead deputizes private individuals to sue anyone who performs the procedure or "aids and abets" it.

The patient may not be sued, but doctors, staff members at clinics, counselors, people who help pay for the procedure, even an Uber driver taking a patient to an abortion clinic are all potential defendants. Plaintiffs, who need not have any connection to the matter or show any injury from it, are entitled to $10,000 and their legal fees recovered if they win. Prevailing defendants are not entitled to legal fees.

The immediate question for the justices is not whether the Texas law is constitutional. It is, rather, whether it may be challenged in federal court. The law's defenders say that, given the way the law is structured, only Texas courts can rule on the matter and only in the context of suits against abortion providers for violating the law.

More... (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/01/us/supreme-court-texas-abortion.html)


It possibly means that the courts will not rule on it until somebody brings a suit under the new law.

[kutter]

Well, I thought someone with standing had to file a suit for it to be heard. I would say that some ambulance chaser is currently looking for a woman who claims she could not get an abortion under the new law and then you will see another lawsuit.

[Seran]

Well, I thought someone with standing had to file a suit for it to be heard. I would say that some ambulance chaser is currently looking for a woman who claims she could not get an abortion under the new law and then you will see another lawsuit.

That's right, they need someone who has experienced harm or a lack of services as a result of the proposed law, since this is an unprecedented change wince abortion was illegal.

[kutter]

In reading a little about it, it is an oddly, some would say brilliantly crafted, others would say heinously, but either way, assuredly oddly crafted law. Some articles I read said that it will be very hard to challenge outside of Texas, for reasons I did not immediately grasp, but if that is the case, it is here to stay in Texas. SCOTUS is supposed to rule on Mississippi's 15 week ban next term, so I wonder to what extent that will impact Texas.

[Archigeek]

In reading a little about it, it is an oddly, some would say brilliantly crafted, others would say heinously, but either way, assuredly oddly crafted law. Some articles I read said that it will be very hard to challenge outside of Texas, for reasons I did not immediately grasp, but if that is the case, it is here to stay in Texas. SCOTUS is supposed to rule on Mississippi's 15 week ban next term, so I wonder to what extent that will impact Texas.

My guess will be that the Supreme Court will take a broader view of what this law attempts to do (take it out of their purview) and tell Texas to pound sand. If this were to stand, the gate becomes open for any state to circumvent the rulings of the Supreme Court, and they won't stand for that.

[~Rocktar~]

The law doesn't prohibit abortion does it? It just lets others sue over it. Kind of like how the Left tries to use inane restrictions and taxes to ban firearms without banning firearms. Seems pretty clever to me. Sucks when people use your own tactics against you.

[Candor]

SCOTUS is supposed to rule on Mississippi's 15 week ban next term, so I wonder to what extent that will impact Texas.

Some people are saying that case could result in the overturn of Roe vs Wade. If so, states will be free to impose whatever restrictions they want.

[Seran]

The law doesn't prohibit abortion does it? It just lets others sue over it. Kind of like how the Left tries to use inane restrictions and taxes to ban firearms without banning firearms. Seems pretty clever to me. Sucks when people use your own tactics against you.

Except you're giving rapists and perpetrators of incest standing to sue abortion providers from destroying the creation of their criminal acts. Is that what gets you off?

[Parkbandit]

Except you're giving rapists and perpetrators of incest standing to sue abortion providers from destroying the creation of their criminal acts. Is that what gets you off?

What percentage of all abortions would be considered rape/incest?

Would you support the law if rape/incest were exemptions to the law?

[Archigeek]

The law doesn't prohibit abortion does it? It just lets others sue over it. Kind of like how the Left tries to use inane restrictions and taxes to ban firearms without banning firearms. Seems pretty clever to me. Sucks when people use your own tactics against you.

By your definition of "doesn't prevent" poll taxes don't prevent voting. Of course it's designed to prevent abortion.

[Parkbandit]

By your definition of "doesn't prevent" poll taxes don't prevent voting. Of course it's designed to prevent abortion after 6 weeks.

FTFY.

[Archigeek]

FTFY.

Yes, that's correct. After 6 weeks.

[Tgo01]

What percentage of all abortions would be considered rape/incest?

Would you support the law if rape/incest were exemptions to the law?

Exactly this.

This is always the first thing people such as Seran say when it comes to laws such as this. "You obviously don't care about victims of rape and incest!!!!!"

Okay, would you be okay with this law if there were exceptions for rape and incest?

"No, you bigot! Her body her choice!!!!"

Stop using rape victims to further your agenda, Seran.

[azim17]

Misleading thread title. Thank god caviar is safe.

[Seran]

What percentage of all abortions would be considered rape/incest?

Would you support the law if rape/incest were exemptions to the law?

Texas doesn't disclose the reason for a patients choice to abort, though I don't know how the exact numbers are relevant. Unless you live under a rock you've scene the news articles since early this year about people sharing their stories about needing to abort after a criminal rape in Texas.

And no, I wouldn't support the law with or without the exemption. But the disgusting people who drafted the law and decided to not put in an exemption clearly care more about their godliness than protecting victims.

[Neveragain]

Just 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and less than 0.5% do so because of incest, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Yet the battle over exceptions for both has garnered outsized attention in the national abortion debate

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/24/rape-and-incest-account-few-abortions-so-why-all-attention/1211175001/

[Orthin]

I'm just surprised all these conservatives are so for immigrants since technically all these little zygotes or what have you are not US citizens until they are actually born. If you think about it, those crazy liberals are doing conservatives a favor by helping with immigration by removing these immigrants permanently.

hmm I was going to extravagant tongue in cheek but this sounds more like the Perry Bible Fellowship...

[Neveragain]

I'm just surprised all these conservatives are so for immigrants since technically all these little zygotes or what have you are not US citizens until they are actually born. If you think about it, those crazy liberals are doing conservatives a favor by helping with immigration by removing these immigrants permanently.

hmm I was going to extravagant tongue in cheek but this sounds more like the Perry Bible Fellowship...

This may actually be an argument if conservatives were suggesting that we murder all the immigrants.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I'm just surprised all these conservatives are so for immigrants since technically all these little zygotes or what have you are not US citizens until they are actually born. If you think about it, those crazy liberals are doing conservatives a favor by helping with immigration by removing these immigrants permanently.

hmm I was going to extravagant tongue in cheek but this sounds more like the Perry Bible Fellowship...

The fallacy in your argument is foundational. Vast majority of conservatives aren't against immigration. Hint, it's when you put illegal in front of it.

[Parkbandit]

Texas doesn't disclose the reason for a patients choice to abort, though I don't know how the exact numbers are relevant. Unless you live under a rock you've scene the news articles since early this year about people sharing their stories about needing to abort after a criminal rape in Texas.

And no, I wouldn't support the law with or without the exemption. But the disgusting people who drafted the law and decided to not put in an exemption clearly care more about their godliness than protecting victims.

So, it has absolutely nothing to do with rape or incest.. you just did what every brain dead liberal sock puppet always does.. brings up rape and incest as if that is the reason that abortion is legal.

Stand by your "convictions" and stop pretending it's about something that it isn't.

[Parkbandit]

I'm just surprised all these conservatives are so for immigrants since technically all these little zygotes or what have you are not US citizens until they are actually born. If you think about it, those crazy liberals are doing conservatives a favor by helping with immigration by removing these immigrants permanently.

hmm I was going to extravagant tongue in cheek but this sounds more like the Perry Bible Fellowship...

What conservatives are against legal immigration, specifically?

[Seran]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/24/rape-and-incest-account-few-abortions-so-why-all-attention/1211175001/

Thank you for the information. If we apply their poll of patients, 1.5% combined rape or incest result to the roughly 54,000 abortions in Texas last year, that's somewhere in the neighborhood of 840 statistically.

The Texas's fetal heartbeat laws, that's 840 women now finding it that much harder to obtain an abortion within their state. I literally can't think of a single legitimate reason for not adding a rape or incest exception to their law that isn't purely religious fanaticism.

[Seran]

So, it has absolutely nothing to do with rape or incest.. you just did what every brain dead liberal sock puppet always does.. brings up rape and incest as if that is the reason that abortion is legal.

Stand by your "convictions" and stop pretending it's about something that it isn't.

In your world, logic must be enemy number one. My being a proponent of a woman's right to abort outside of six weeks is not made irrelevant by the repugnant lack of exceptions in Texas's law. My pointing out their lack of rape or incest exceptions is to highlight that event abortion opponents should be shocked at the callousness of the law.

[Ashliana]

What conservatives are against legal immigration, specifically?

Spoiler Alert: The game show host con man you just voted for was a huge opponent of legal immigration, and did practically nothing to reduce illegal immigration (https://www.cato.org/blog/president-trump-reduced-legal-immigration-he-did-not-reduce-illegal-immigration). Naturally, you, being a 60 year old who cleans ducts for a living, uncritically supported the man, while apparently somehow not knowing about any of the things he was doing.


Why did you think a huge, neon sign saying "Look how retarded Parkbandit is!" would serve you well?

Oh. Because you're Retard Champion Tardbandit. Post in your meltdown thread, please. Not only are you overdue, you're especially easy to command when you humiliate yourself for absolutely no reason, totally unprompted.

[Neveragain]

Thank you for the information. If we apply their poll of patients, 1.5% combined rape or incest result to the roughly 54,000 abortions in Texas last year, that's somewhere in the neighborhood of 840 statistically.

The Texas's fetal heartbeat laws, that's 840 women now finding it that much harder to obtain an abortion within their state. I literally can't think of a single legitimate reason for not adding a rape or incest exception to their law that isn't purely religious fanaticism.

Explain to us how killing the baby makes the rape go away?

I would settle for 1.5% if that means 53,160 humans aren't being murdered.

Can I use how "some society believes something so it makes it true" argument that's used for there being 5,678 different genders?

[Seran]

Explain to us how killing the baby makes the rape go away?

I would settle for 1.5% if that means 53,160 humans aren't being murdered.

Can I use how "some society believes something so it makes it true" argument that's used for there being 5,678 different genders?

Terminating an nonviable fetus. Rape, molestation, whether incestuous or not is going to scar someone for life. Why force a woman or girl to suffer for the nine months of pregnancy, why afflict the child with an mother who can't look at their infant with out being reminded of their trauma. Why force someone to agonize over the choice of putting up a child for an adoption and face a lifetime of guilt or speculation about their whereabouts. That's what lawmakers have decided for Texas women, that regardless of the circumstances of getting pregnant, you will bear the fetus to term or find a way out of the state.

[kutter]

Terminating an nonviable fetus. Rape, molestation, whether incestuous or not is going to scar someone for life. Why force a woman or girl to suffer for the nine months of pregnancy, why afflict the child with an mother who can't look at their infant with out being reminded of their trauma. Why force someone to agonize over the choice of putting up a child for an adoption and face a lifetime of guilt or speculation about their whereabouts. That's what lawmakers have decided for Texas women, that regardless of the circumstances of getting pregnant, you will bear the fetus to term or find a way out of the state.

I am confused, no one is preventing abortion, only saying you have to do it within the first 6 weeks. If a woman is raped or commits incest, although I have always wondered why incest was in there since if is consensual, why is it excepted, but I digress, they have 6 weeks. They know when they were assaulted if in the case of rape or banged their dad in the case of West Virginia, so just go to the damn clinic within 6 weeks. Christ you can build a damn house in 6 weeks, are you telling me you can't get to the doctor?

[LOL BRIELUS]

Litter have you had a kid before? Your first ultrasound is usually 8 weeks, it's almost not possible to detect that fast unless you get weekly Sonos.

[Neveragain]

Terminating an nonviable fetus. Rape, molestation, whether incestuous or not is going to scar someone for life. Why force a woman or girl to suffer for the nine months of pregnancy, why afflict the child with an mother who can't look at their infant with out being reminded of their trauma. Why force someone to agonize over the choice of putting up a child for an adoption and face a lifetime of guilt or speculation about their whereabouts. That's what lawmakers have decided for Texas women, that regardless of the circumstances of getting pregnant, you will bear the fetus to term or find a way out of the state.

How does killing the innocent human make the rape go away?

[kutter]

Litter have you had a kid before? Your first ultrasound is usually 8 weeks, it's almost not possible to detect that fast unless you get weekly Sonos.


Blood tests are done in a doctor's office. They can pick up hCG earlier in a pregnancy than urine tests can. Blood tests can tell if you are pregnant about six to eight days after you ovulate. Doctors use two types of blood tests to check for pregnancy. https://www.womenshealth.gov/pregnancy

So much for that argument.

[Parkbandit]

https://www.womenshealth.gov/pregnancy

So much for that argument.

It's not that uncommon for someone to not know they are pregnant 6 weeks in.

[kutter]

It's not that uncommon for someone to not know they are pregnant 6 weeks in.

Did you read the quote from womenshealth.gov? They can tell at 6-8 DAYS.

[Gelston]

Did you read the quote from womenshealth.gov? They can tell at 6-8 DAYS.

Just because some people CAN doesn't mean everyone WILL.

[ClydeR]

I literally can't think of a single legitimate reason for not adding a rape or incest exception to their law that isn't purely religious fanaticism.


Is the 6th Commandment -- Thou Shalt Not Kill -- the kind of religious fanaticism you're talking about?

Most people opposed to abortion genuinely believe that it is murder. That was not always the prevailing religious view. When Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, it did not produce an immediate backlash. Take a look the below article from a Southern Baptist publication. I will leave it to you to research what may have caused the change of opinion six years later.

Whatever the reason for the change of opinion, about which most Christians are completely ignorant, it does not detract from the fact that many Christians today think it's murder.



January 31, 1973
High Court Holds Abortion To Be ‘A right of Privacy’
By W. Barry Garrett

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision that overturned a Texas law which denied a woman the right of abortion except to save her life, has advanced the cause of religious liberty, human equality and justice. At the same time ‘the court struck down a Georgia law that imposed unconstitutional procedures, in getting medical approval for an abortion…

The two decisions raise numerous other questions which Baptists and others should seek to understand. Among them:

Question: Was this a Warren type or “liberal” Supreme Court that rendered the decision?

Answer: No. This was a “strict constructionist” court, most of whose members have been appointed by President Nixon.

Question: Did the Supreme Court violate religious propriety by its abortion decision?

Answer: The Roman Catholic hierarchy insists that the Supreme Court blundered by making an immoral, anti-religious and unjustified decision. It has vowed to continue the fight against relaxed abortion laws.

However, most other religious bodies and leaders, who have expressed themselves, approve the decision. Social, welfare and civil rights workers hailed the decision with enthusiasm.

The Supreme Court itself recognized “the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy. It said, however, that “we need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus,” the court continued, “the judiciary at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

Thus, it appears to be the view of the court that it decided a constitutional question without attempting answers to the medical, philosophical or theological problems in abortion.

Question: What is the Southern Baptist position on abortion?

Answer: There is no official Southern Baptist position on abortion, or any other such question. Among 12 million Southern Baptists, there are probably 12 million different opinions.

Question: Does the Supreme Court decision on abortion intrude on the religious life of the people?

Answer: No. Religious bodies and religious persons can continue to teach their own particular views to their constituents with all the vigor they desire. People whose conscience forbids abortion are not compelled by law to have abortions. They are free to practice their religion according to the tenets of their personal or corporate faith.

The reverse is also now true since the Supreme Court decision. Those whose conscience or religious convictions are not violated by abortion may not now be forbidden by a religious law to obtain an abortion it they so choose.

In short, if the state laws are now made to conform to the Supreme Court ruling, the decision to obtain an abortion or to bring pregnancy to full term can now be a matter of conscience and deliberate choice rather than one compelled by law.

Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision.

More... (https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/baptist-press-initial-reporting-on-roe-v-wade/)


Backlash, by the way, is the real political question. Will overturning Roe, if that is what happens or has already happened, generate an immediate backlash, unlike the original decision? I believe it will depend on whether or not people believe the court has taken something away from them. If enough people believe they have lost a right, then it will generate a backlash. Politicians know that. Think about other important decisions by the Supreme Court and which ones generated a backlash. You'll see that I am right.

[ClydeR]

...I have always wondered why incest was in there since if is consensual....


Incest is often an abusive situation in which the victim does not have an opportunity to seek help.

Plus there's the problem of having too many recessive genes..



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1wL4PMc4Vo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1wL4PMc4Vo

[Seran]

I am confused, no one is preventing abortion, only saying you have to do it within the first 6 weeks. If a woman is raped or commits incest, although I have always wondered why incest was in there since if is consensual, why is it excepted, but I digress, they have 6 weeks. They know when they were assaulted if in the case of rape or banged their dad in the case of West Virginia, so just go to the damn clinic within 6 weeks. Christ you can build a damn house in 6 weeks, are you telling me you can't get to the doctor?

Of course it's preventing abortion. The laws has opened up abortion providers and doctors to massive financial consequences for performing abortions. Literally malpractice insurance for abortion providers went through the roof. This was an end run to halt abortions and the Supreme Court allowed it.

Also, how many people do you know who start taking pregnancy tests right after they have unprotected sex. Given most retail pregnancy tests recommend waiting three weeks to guarantee results, you're left with three weeks to secure an abortion.

[Seran]

How does killing the innocent human make the rape go away?

It's not a human. It's a collection of cells.

[Tgo01]

It's not a human. It's a collection of cells.

Spoken like a true Nazi.

[Gelston]

It's not a human. It's a collection of cells.

All humans are collections of cells, are they not? They are saying life is at the heartbeat.

Remember when you claimed to be a Republican though?

[Methais]

Abortion should be mandatory for all leftists.

[Seran]

Is the 6th Commandment -- Thou Shalt Not Kill -- the kind of religious fanaticism you're talking about?

Most people opposed to abortion genuinely believe that it is murder. That was not always the prevailing religious view. When Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, it did not produce an immediate backlash. Take a look the below article from a Southern Baptist publication. I will leave it to you to research what may have caused the change of opinion six years later.

Whatever the reason for the change of opinion, about which most Christians are completely ignorant, it does not detract from the fact that many Christians today think it's murder.

The ethics of one group of people are not allowed to deny the rights of a second group of people. Whether their Christian, Muslim, Atheist or a random simply trying to prescribe their beliefs about morality onto others, the Constitution protects the individual right.

Everything else is horse shit.

[Seran]

All humans are collections of cells, are they not? They are saying life is at the heartbeat.

Remember when you claimed to be a Republican though?

And while others say consciousness and self awareness doesn't develop unto the third trimester and until then it's simply a collection of cells.

[Tgo01]

And while others say consciousness and self awareness doesn't develop unto the third trimester and until then it's simply a collection of cells.

Most animals lack self awareness, are they too just a collection of cells?

[Tgo01]

It's pretty amazing really. If scientists discover a single cell organism on a distant planet the headlines would scream "LIFE FOUND ON ANOTHER PLANET!" It would be the biggest scientific discovery in the history of mankind. It would make all of the history books.

And here will be people like Seran saying "Yeah but that's not really life, it's just a cell."

The argument used to be that it's a very serious medical decision that a woman should make with her doctor and it's really no one else's business. But then at some point people like Seran figured it would just be easier to argue against pro-lifers by declaring that the baby isn't even human. I'm just surprised Seran hasn't said fetuses are parasites.

[Neveragain]

And while others say consciousness and self awareness doesn't develop unto the third trimester and until then it's simply a collection of cells.

Speaking of science deniers.

[Seran]

Most animals lack self awareness, are they too just a collection of cells?

Collections of cells and some are also food.

[Seran]

It's pretty amazing really. If scientists discover a single cell organism on a distant planet the headlines would scream "LIFE FOUND ON ANOTHER PLANET!" It would be the biggest scientific discovery in the history of mankind. It would make all of the history books.

And here will be people like Seran saying "Yeah but that's not really life, it's just a cell."

The argument used to be that it's a very serious medical decision that a woman should make with her doctor and it's really no one else's business. But then at some point people like Seran figured it would just be easier to argue against pro-lifers by declaring that the baby isn't even human. I'm just surprised Seran hasn't said fetuses are parasites.

Cool story bro. Also, fetuses are parasites by scientific definition. It takes takes nutrition from its host and exerts influence on the hosts biological systems in order to survive and develop. Welcome to science, population: you.

[Tgo01]

Also, fetuses are parasites by scientific definition.

Ah there it is.

And you have the audacity to accuse anyone else of being science deniers.

[Neveragain]

Ah there it is.

And you have the audacity to accuse anyone else of being science deniers.

Where have we seen this in history before, experimental medicines, humans = parasites, show me your papers....?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Cool story bro. Also, fetuses are parasites by scientific definition. It takes takes nutrition from its host and exerts influence on the hosts biological systems in order to survive and develop. Welcome to science, population: you.


Ah there it is.

And you have the audacity to accuse anyone else of being science deniers.

Seran is correct. I took two embryology course in college, the human baby is a parasite on the mothers body. Literally embeds itself in and lives off it's host.

Still though, so what. Are parasites not living things?

[Neveragain]

Cool story bro. Also, fetuses are parasites by scientific definition. It takes takes nutrition from its host and exerts influence on the hosts biological systems in order to survive and develop. Welcome to science, population: you.

I don't think the word parasite means what you think it means.

A parasite, by definition, is one species that feeds from another species.

[Bhaalizmo]

I don't think.

Tell us something we don't know.

[Neveragain]

I also don't know what words mean.

I suggest using a dictionary.

[Methais]

Me at my best:
https://c.tenor.com/lk5YUP4Co1QAAAAC/static-glitch.gif

This is correct.

[Seran]

I don't think the word parasite means what you think it means.

A parasite, by definition, is one species that feeds from another species.

I suppose you have some learning to do then.

[Parkbandit]

Did you read the quote from womenshealth.gov? They can tell at 6-8 DAYS.

You don't take a pregnancy test unless you think you are pregnant.

It's not that uncommon for someone to not know they are pregnant 6 weeks in.

[Gelston]

I suppose you have some learning to do then.

But he doesn't though. A parasite has to be a different species from it's host, so you are 100% incorrect.

You should go rewatch videos on how babies are made and how the sperm goes into eggs and such. Because that isn't how a parasite comes into a host body either.

[Seran]

But he doesn't though. A parasite has to be a different species from it's host, so you are 100% incorrect.

You should go rewatch videos on how babies are made and how the sperm goes into eggs and such. Because that isn't how a parasite comes into a host body either.

No, it doesn't.


A parasite is an organism that lives on or in a host organism and gets its food from or at the expense of its host.

[ClydeR]

People are working overtime to generate a political backlash. Politically, it's easier to be against something than for something. The Texas law is a good target for something to be against. Other states say they plan to pass identical laws, starting with Florida, of course.


Democrats say they're itching for a political fight over abortion rights — and that it will help them in the 2022 midterms. But even if they're right, they’re still losing the war.

The big picture: The Supreme Court appears to be barreling toward rulings giving red states significantly more power to restrict women's access to abortions, if not to ban the procedure outright.

Driving the news: Even many conservatives were taken aback when the nation's high court on Wednesday allowed a Texas law to take effect that bans almost all abortions in the state and allows private citizens to sue anyone who helped facilitate one.

What they’re saying: Democrats say the sheer sweep of Texas’ law and the highly unusual way it’s written make it a juicy political target.

“I want to see the GOP defend the idea that your nosy neighbor can sue your aunt for driving you to the hospital,” a senior White House aide told Axios.

More... (https://www.axios.com/supreme-court-abortion-texas-mississippi-democrats-49018174-7b2b-4e4c-b416-8d41867cd8c6.html)

I believe that Texas made a political and legal mistake. Politically, the Texas law is bound to be unpopular because it encourages spying and vigilantism. Legally, it won't make any difference if the law is enforced by the state or private citizens. Having it enforced by private citizens may baffle the courts for a short time, but the ultimate issue remains whether or nor Roe v. Wade should be upheld.

There was a time when states tried to get around laws against racial segregation by allowing subdivisions to have restrictive covenants forbidding selling a house to black families. The state said it was a private matter to be enforced by the subdivisions, and the state was not involved in enforcing it. Not so, said the Supreme Court (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelley_v._Kraemer). Allowing private citizens to use state courts and to enforce segregation was state action. State courts are, after all, part of the state. If there is a right to abortion, which ultimately comes back to the question of whether or nor Roe v. Wade should be upheld, then the Texas law will be just as unenforceable as racially restrictive subdivision covenants.

[Gelston]

No, it doesn't.

"Parasitism is a symbiotic relationship between species,"

And again, even if it COULD be the same species (it can't be)m they spread as fully formed organisms. Not as sperm entering eggs in another organism. There is another word for that, and it isn't parasitism. Please, kindly, pull your head out of your ass.

[Taernath]

After reading about this law, I'm sure the usual suspects who rant about state surveillance, Chinese social credits, and 1984 will be totally up in arms.

[Parkbandit]

No, it doesn't.

Websters Dictionary:
A parasitic relationship is one in which one organism, the parasite, lives off of another organism, the host, harming it and possibly causing death.

Oxford Dictionary:
An organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.

Dictionary.com:
an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.

Wikipedia.com:
Parasitism is a symbiotic relationship between species, where one organism, the parasite, lives on or inside another organism, the host, causing it some harm, and is adapted structurally to this way of life.[

These are the first 4 definitions that come up from a search. This is what the term actually means. Now, I'm sure you can scour the Internet to find some definition where it doesn't explicitly eliminate a fetus in the womb.. but it would require you to be a science denier.

[Neveragain]

Websters Dictionary:
A parasitic relationship is one in which one organism, the parasite, lives off of another organism, the host, harming it and possibly causing death.

Oxford Dictionary:
An organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.

Dictionary.com:
an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.

Wikipedia.com:
Parasitism is a symbiotic relationship between species, where one organism, the parasite, lives on or inside another organism, the host, causing it some harm, and is adapted structurally to this way of life.[

These are the first 4 definitions that come up from a search. This is what the term actually means. Now, I'm sure you can scour the Internet to find some definition where it doesn't explicitly eliminate a fetus in the womb.. but it would require you to be a science denier.

I'm pretty sure we learned this stuff in 6th grade. It's kind of frightening.

[drauz]

I am confused, no one is preventing abortion, only saying you have to do it within the first 6 weeks.

Which is before a lot of women even know they're pregnant.

[Vindicate]

Whether by mere accident or strategy, Texas did accomplish one thing. The left is no longer focused on voting restrictions.

[Seran]

I'm pretty sure we learned this stuff in 6th grade. It's kind of frightening.

Your first and fourth definitions actually prove my point, while your third link actually has multiple definitions including the following;


an animal or plant that lives in or on another (the host) from which it obtains nourishment. The host does not benefit from the association and is often harmed by it

[Neveragain]

Your first and fourth definitions actually prove my point, while your third link actually has multiple definitions including the following;

Not sure why you insist on proving that Ricky has a better education than you.

[Neveragain]

Which is before a lot of women even know they're pregnant.

Breaking News: Humans having sex makes other humans.

[Gelston]

Your first and fourth definitions actually prove my point, while your third link actually has multiple definitions including the following;

No it doesn't. Even if it wasn't required to be a different species feeding off another, the transmission vectors are totally wrong. Stop pretending you know something because you saw a joke on Scrubs.

[Shaps]

I always thought the first trimester was a reasonable compromise - for those against abortion, and those that support abortion.

We are a Nation full of various viewpoints... so in my mind the first 3-4 months should be reasonable.

Apparently the earliest born fetus that has survived is 21 weeks (5 months). If it's happened before, then reasonable to assume it's a human at that point when it comes to legal definitions, etc. and the way things get described. (I'm only talking from a legal standpoint, not a moral one in this context)

Problem is our politicians like making it a political football... see current hemming and hawing occurring.

But by no means should abortions be happening in the last trimester. If you can't make up your mind before that, then you are seriously lacking. Late term abortions are exceptionally heinous (except in cases to save the mother of course).

[~Rocktar~]

I always thought the first trimester was a reasonable compromise - for those against abortion, and those that support abortion.

We are a Nation full of various viewpoints... so in my mind the first 3-4 months should be reasonable.

Apparently the earliest born fetus that has survived is 21 weeks (5 months). If it's happened before, then reasonable to assume it's a human at that point when it comes to legal definitions, etc. and the way things get described. (I'm only talking from a legal standpoint, not a moral one in this context)

Problem is our politicians like making it a political football... see current hemming and hawing occurring.

But by no means should abortions be happening in the last trimester. If you can't make up your mind before that, then you are seriously lacking. Late term abortions are exceptionally heinous (except in cases to save the mother of course).

I want to be able to perform post partum abortions after the 67th trimester.

[drauz]

I always thought the first trimester was a reasonable compromise - for those against abortion, and those that support abortion.

We are a Nation full of various viewpoints... so in my mind the first 3-4 months should be reasonable.

Apparently the earliest born fetus that has survived is 21 weeks (5 months). If it's happened before, then reasonable to assume it's a human at that point when it comes to legal definitions, etc. and the way things get described. (I'm only talking from a legal standpoint, not a moral one in this context)

Problem is our politicians like making it a political football... see current hemming and hawing occurring.

But by no means should abortions be happening in the last trimester. If you can't make up your mind before that, then you are seriously lacking. Late term abortions are exceptionally heinous (except in cases to save the mother of course).

3 months would be fine for me but 6 weeks is WAY to quick.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Dems should thank Texas for the headline news. Otherwise we might still be talking about all the people getting slaughtered by the terrorists in Afghanistan. Or the border. Or covid. Or the debt ceiling. Or the deficit. Etc

[Shaps]

3 months would be fine for me but 6 weeks is WAY to quick.

I can agree with that. Many times women don't realize they're pregnant for awhile. As said, I think 3 months is low-end reasonable.. 4 more balanced approach.. 5+ I personally disagree with (again from a legal standpoint).

Morally, I disagree with abortions (except in cases of rape, incest, or mother's health).. but I understand we're a conglomerate of peoples, and if you want to kill your unborn kid - that's on you. Doing it after the baby could survive on it's own though, I disagree with that from a legal standpoint.

4 months to make up your mind is a reasonable compromise from that standpoint I think.

[Shaps]

Dems should thank Texas for the headline news. Otherwise we might still be talking about all the people getting slaughtered by the terrorists in Afghanistan. Or the border. Or covid. Or the debt ceiling. Or the deficit. Etc

The fact people get distracted by this topic, is more a comment on the people.. than the politicians.

Politicians just abuse stupid people with shiny objects like kittens.

[Archigeek]

I can agree with that. Many times women don't realize they're pregnant for awhile. As said, I think 3 months is low-end reasonable.. 4 more balanced approach.. 5+ I personally disagree with (again from a legal standpoint).

Morally, I disagree with abortions (except in cases of rape, incest, or mother's health).. but I understand we're a conglomerate of peoples, and if you want to kill your unborn kid - that's on you. Doing it after the baby could survive on it's own though, I disagree with that from a legal standpoint.

4 months to make up your mind is a reasonable compromise from that standpoint I think.

I think I'm pretty close to this position, but I would generally lean closer to 3, except that late term abortions need to remain an option for either dead, or unviable pregnancies. If you're carrying a child and it has died, or it lacks lungs, or all its organs are outside its body, you have all my sympathy and you should be able to do what you wish as you mourn the death of a child that you obviously wanted. Unfortunately a lot of states have a tough time recognizing that people who are seeking late term abortions are not people who wanted an end to their pregnancy.

So yeah, 3 month limit for those seeking an abortion for their own reasons that are none of my business, but any abortion any time if the fetus is deemed 100% unviable or already deceased.

Seems like a reasonable compromise, so that will never happen.

[Tgo01]

After reading about this law, I'm sure the usual suspects who rant about state surveillance, Chinese social credits, and 1984 will be totally up in arms.

Doesn’t the law just allow anyone to sue anyone who helped a woman get an abortion? I don’t understand what that has to do with surveillance or social credits. Unless the law also allows people to legally wiretap someone’s phone or something to make sure they aren’t planning to get an abortion.

[drauz]

Doesn’t the law just allow anyone to sue anyone who helped a woman get an abortion? I don’t understand what that has to do with surveillance or social credits. Unless the law also allows people to legally wiretap someone’s phone or something to make sure they aren’t planning to get an abortion.

It offers $10k to info leading to a conviction. There is huge incentive to report everyone and everything, you might be right and win $10k. I'm sure no one is going to use this to hassle other people, no way that'll happen people just aren't like that.

[Methais]

No, it doesn't.

https://i.imgur.com/pIusyoh.jpg

Literally all you had to do was Google “parasite definition” instead of doubling down on being a tard.

[Tgo01]

It offers $10k to info leading to a conviction. There is huge incentive to report everyone and everything, you might be right and win $10k. I'm sure no one is going to use this to hassle other people, no way that'll happen people just aren't like that.

I still don't see what that has to do with surveillance. Rewards for tips that lead to a conviction have been a thing since at least as long as I can remember, I'm sure it dates back hundreds of years.

[Methais]

Not sure why you insist on proving that Ricky has a better education than you.

Ricky got his grade 10. Seranpk…doubt.

[drauz]

I still don't see what that has to do with surveillance. Rewards for tips that lead to a conviction have been a thing since at least as long as I can remember, I'm sure it dates back hundreds of years.

They will sometimes post rewards for a specific crime but I don't think I've ever heard of an open bounty on a crime. If there has been a system like this I feel like it's super rare.

[ClydeR]

It offers $10k to info leading to a conviction.

No. The Texas law did not even attempt to make abortion a crime. Abortion is still just as legal in Texas as it was before this law was enacted. The new law just gives anybody the right to sue any person who assists in obtain an abortion, which, as I said, is still legal.

Texas is letting anybody sue anybody who assists with a perfectly legal, and currently constitutionally protected, activity.

Think of it this way. If you accidentally drive into someone else on the road, then you have not committed a crime. It is not illegal to have an accident, with some exceptions for drunk driving, reckless driving, etc. But you can still be sued even though you did not commit a crime.

Remember when flag burning was the hot topic? The Supreme Court ruled that burning a flag is constitutionally protected free speech. What if a state -- say, Texas, for example -- had said that even though flag burning is legal, anybody can sue a flag burner for $10,000?


I'm sure no one is going to use this to hassle other people, no way that'll happen people just aren't like that.

I'm sure you're right about that.

[Shaps]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/why-satanists-may-last-hope-222948030.html

This is what it's come to. A non-sarcastic write-up on how a Satanic church can stop the Texas Abortion legislation.

Be sure to note at the end.. "In spite of its name, the Temple of Satan largely stands as an activist institution..."

I mean sure.. they aren't really worshipping Satan. Nope, not at all.

This country is screwed.

[Methais]

I like how people keep shrieking shit like this...

https://i.imgur.com/LFcipQi.jpg


...while completely ignoring the fact that RGB was too arrogant to retire under Obama like she should have when she was only like 148 years old.


Abortion should be mandatory for these people.

[Gelston]

No. The Texas law did not even attempt to make abortion a crime. Abortion is still just as legal in Texas as it was before this law was enacted. The new law just gives anybody the right to sue any person who assists in obtain an abortion, which, as I said, is still legal.

Texas is letting anybody sue anybody who assists with a perfectly legal, and currently constitutionally protected, activity.

Think of it this way. If you accidentally drive into someone else on the road, then you have not committed a crime. It is not illegal to have an accident, with some exceptions for drunk driving, reckless driving, etc. But you can still be sued even though you did not commit a crime.

Remember when flag burning was the hot topic? The Supreme Court ruled that burning a flag is constitutionally protected free speech. What if a state -- say, Texas, for example -- had said that even though flag burning is legal, anybody can sue a flag burner for $10,000?



I'm sure you're right about that.

If you've read the bill, it states abortion was already illegal in Texas, as they never changed the law when Roe v Wade went through, they just stopped enforcing it. This amends previous laws in a way that changes the enforcement of the law.

[drauz]

I like how people keep shrieking shit like this...

https://i.imgur.com/LFcipQi.jpg


...while completely ignoring the fact that RGB was too arrogant to retire under Obama like she should have when she was only like 148 years old.


Abortion should be mandatory for these people.

The two aren't mutually exclusive, you can be worried when she died because she hadn't retired when she should have...

[Parkbandit]

The two aren't mutually exclusive, you can be worried when she died because she hadn't retired when she should have...

The appointment of a SCOTUS judge is for life.

"when she should have" is an opinion, given that there is no requirement to retire for that position.

[drauz]

The appointment of a SCOTUS judge is for life.

"when she should have" is an opinion, given that there is no requirement to retire for that position.

https://c.tenor.com/Kel3dBOjZ_AAAAAM/wheel-of-fortune-wheel.gif

[Methais]

The two aren't mutually exclusive, you can be worried when she died because she hadn't retired when she should have...

Nothing changes the fact that if RGB retired when she should have, being that she was already old as fuck when Obama was still in office (she was 83 when Trump got elected), Obama would have replaced her with some other lefty instead of getting replaced by Trump.


Walmart time4fun wasn't too thrilled about it either...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VShybp7GYTE

[drauz]

Nothing changes the fact that if RGB retired when she should have, being that she was already old as fuck when Obama was still in office (she was 83 when Trump got elected), Obama would have replaced her with some other lefty instead of getting replaced by Trump.


Walmart time4fun wasn't too thrilled about it either...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VShybp7GYTE

I agree it was hubris on her part.

[Methais]

https://i.imgur.com/W3nzJJt.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/6EtMnUq.png

https://media0.giphy.com/media/3o7TKN9IUHHFXWyPlK/200.gif

[drauz]

https://i.imgur.com/W3nzJJt.jpg

Are we just not talking about what is hanging up behind her...

Also tell me you aren't glad she had those abortions.

[Methais]

Are we just not talking about what is hanging up behind her...

Also tell me you aren't glad she had those abortions.

I've been saying that abortions should be mandatory for leftists, so yes she's doing the world a favor.

It looks like a pussy suit in the background because vaginas and abortions are clearly 100% of this chick's personality.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I that shirt is true, that is the dumbest person on earth. Are abortions free or something?

[Methais]

I that shirt is true, that is the dumbest person on earth. Are abortions free or something?

Your taxes probably paid for it, and if you have a problem with that then it's because you hate all women, bigot.

[ClydeR]

Chief Justice John Roberts is searching for a compromise to preserve some basic right to abortion while moving it earlier in pregnancy, perhaps as early as 15 weeks. But based on today’s oral argument, it seems unlikely that any of the other justices is interested. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in particular, seemed to telegraph a willingness to overturn Roe v. Wade altogether.

More... (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/the-supreme-court-seems-poised-to-overturn-roe-v-wade/2021/12/01/6d1d8d44-52cc-11ec-83d2-d9dab0e23b7e_story.html)


That is a good summary.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I personally hope nothing changes. I am against abortion and for the choice to have one. It's actually one law I hope does stay federal as well and not up to the states.

[Methais]

Most aborted babies would just vote democrat later on if they weren't aborted anyway, so abortion rules.

[Gelston]

I personally hope nothing changes. I am against abortion and for the choice to have one. It's actually one law I hope does stay federal as well and not up to the states.

I want it to be a state law. Not a federal one.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I want it to be a state law. Not a federal one.

I'm conflicted about it, because I am mostly in the camp of the states making their laws. I just like it in this case because I don't like the idea of say California making it legal, and Nevada not, and then people traveling to have the procedure. For no other reason than to me it doesn't feel right, even if I'm against people having an abortion.

Not the best reason I know, just where I'm at on it.

[Shaps]

Said before, but I'm in the camp of "viability" as a compromise for people. Current youngest child to ever make it was roughly 5.5 months.

Therefore, set the law as.. abortions allowed up to 5 months. After that, no abortions allowed.

Gives women the right to choose and control their body. Gives those with the idea for right to life, a reasonable timeframe to ensure a child could be viable and live.

Of course, the far left will bitch and moan about blah blah and blah... and the extreme right will complain also.

That's just me though.

[kutter]

I want it to be a state law. Not a federal one.

Have to agree here. If states can regulate a right guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment, then why can't states regulate something that is not a guaranteed right?

[Seran]

Have to agree here. If states can regulate a right guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment, then why can't states regulate something that is not a guaranteed right?

Because being forced to he host to someone else's genetic material and thus bear an unwanted pregnancy to term by a State is a clear violation of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution.

[Seran]

Just as they second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms within the constraints of a well regulated militia grants the ability of a state to determine what regulations it shall impose. No state can say that a man impregnating a women, who has no willingness to bear a child, has rights to force her to bring it to term.

[Tgo01]

I want it to be a state law. Not a federal one.

Hell I would be happy if it were actually a federal law, at least then it has to go through the process of becoming a law and everyone involved has to own their decision. Right now it’s just something the Supreme Court entirely made up 50 years ago.

[Tgo01]

Because being forced to he host to someone else's genetic material

… you understand how pregnancy works right?

[Seran]

… you understand how pregnancy works right?

You understand that women have the freedom to have intercourse without being required to have a child? I know your beliefs relegate women as breeding boxes only, but the majority of the country disagrees.

[Gelston]

You understand that women have the freedom to have intercourse without being required to have a child? I know your beliefs relegate women as breeding boxes only, but the majority of the country disagrees.

Did you know there are many, many ways to prevent pregnancy? Condoms, the pill, vasectomy, IUD... So many different ways instead of killing a child.

Of course, if your concern is "hosting someone else's genetic material", don't let it enter you in the first place.

[Shaps]

You understand that women have the freedom to have intercourse without being required to have a child? I know your beliefs relegate women as breeding boxes only, but the majority of the country disagrees.

You understand that men have the freedom to have intercourse without being required to pay for a child right? I know your beliefs regulate men as bank accounts only, but the majority of the country disagrees.

[Seran]

Did you know there are many, many ways to prevent pregnancy? Condoms, the pill, vasectomy, IUD... So many different ways instead of killing a child.

Of course, if your concern is "hosting someone else's genetic material", don't let it enter you in the first place.

So your argument that if contraceptives fail, if a woman was raped and inseminationated against her will, or that a woman has a change of heart upon learning she is pregnant, she is irrevocably required to bear someone else's progeny?

[Parkbandit]

So your argument that if contraceptives fail, if a woman was raped and inseminationated against her will, or that a woman has a change of heart upon learning she is pregnant, she is irrevocably required to bear someone else's progeny?

If your argument is "WE NEED ABORTIONS FOR RAPE AND INCEST!" you've already lost. Stick to a woman's right.

Also, it's just inseminated.

[Seran]

You understand that men have the freedom to have intercourse without being required to pay for a child right? I know your beliefs regulate men as bank accounts only, but the majority of the country disagrees.

Ah, that's an interesting if unsurprisingly chauvinistic point of view.

Parents in our country can give up their parental rights in most states and never have financial responsibility did the child they willingly or unwillingly created. However, it's not the man's right to dictate whether or not a woman gets to abort a pregnancy, anymore than the State can go against the Constitution to dictate the same.

[Tgo01]

You understand that women have the freedom to have intercourse without being required to have a child?

Absolutely. Just so we're clear though, you are suggesting abortion should only be allowed in cases where the condom or birth control failed right?

[Tgo01]

However, it's not the man's right to dictate whether or not a woman gets to abort a pregnancy

So are you saying the man gets no say in whether or not his offspring is murdered by a "medical" "professional"?

[Shaps]

Ah, that's an interesting if unsurprisingly chauvinistic point of view.

Parents in our country can give up their parental rights in most states and never have financial responsibility did the child they willingly or unwillingly created. However, it's not the man's right to dictate whether or not a woman gets to abort a pregnancy, anymore than the State can go against the Constitution to dictate the same.

It's not chauvinistic, it's pragmatic.

If a woman doesn't want a child, and kills it.. there is nothing the man can do.
If a woman wants a child, and doesn't kill it.. there is nothing the man can do.

It's pretty simple.. if it's the woman's choice 100%, then the man should not be held liable in any aspect... as they have no input in the decision.

Additionally, it's not the woman's right to dictate whether or not a man has to pay for a child they do not want.

[Alfster]

Backyard abortions are back on the menu

[Shaps]

Isn't there a plan B pill already? Why are abortions even a thing? If don't want a kid, just pop the after morning pill after sex every time, problem solved.

[Seran]

Absolutely. Just so we're clear though, you are suggesting abortion should only be allowed in cases where the condom or birth control failed right?

I'm saying for the record, a woman should have the sole choice whether or not to abort a child prior to 21 weeks. Without threat of arrest or civil lawsuit.

[Seran]

It's not chauvinistic, it's pragmatic.

If a woman doesn't want a child, and kills it.. there is nothing the man can do.
If a woman wants a child, and doesn't kill it.. there is nothing the man can do.

It's pretty simple.. if it's the woman's choice 100%, then the man should not be held liable in any aspect... as they have no input in the decision.

Additionally, it's not the woman's right to dictate whether or not a man has to pay for a child they do not want.

I don't entirely disagree with you, it should be easier to give up your parental rights. But that being said, the burden of a pregnancy falls solely on the woman through child birth. Health risks alone highlight the need for a woman's right to choose.

If the father wants a baby, there's nothing stopping him from trying with another woman. There's nothing but an emotional tole for him if the woman aborts.

[Seran]

Isn't there a plan B pill already? Why are abortions even a thing? If don't want a kid, just pop the after morning pill after sex every time, problem solved.

Because your window is only 72 hours to 120 hours to take the pill and that's assuming the individual has medical access.

[Tgo01]

I'm saying for the record, a woman should have the sole choice whether or not to abort a child prior to 21 weeks. Without threat of arrest or civil lawsuit.

Ah okay, so this whole nonsense about a woman "accidentally" getting pregnant is just bullshit from you then?

Also why 21 weeks? What happens at 21 weeks where a fetus goes from non-human to human? Do you think the NY law is wrong wherein it allows abortion up until the moment before birth?

And lastly most laws written these days go after the person performing the abortion, not the woman herself.

[Shaps]

Because your window is only 72 hours to 120 hours to take the pill and that's assuming the individual has medical access.

Plan B is sold at Walgreens, Wal-Mart, Target, etc. I'm pretty sure going and buying it at one of those easily accessible locations is doable within 3 days.

People just don't want to take responsibility for their own choice, to take the chance when having sex. If you choose to have sex, you assume the responsibility that comes with it, and therefor should be responsible for yourself.

You, me, or someone else should not have to pay for someone else's voluntary choice to engage in a purely voluntary act.

That's why I don't get why this is such an issue.. people just want it to be one for political reasons. Any rational person can look at the various options available to avoid conception, and take those precautions.

I'm good with "viability" as a metric for an overall Federal Law for women to have the right to choose - within a reasonable timeframe. I personally disagree with anything below as 22 week mark, as that is currently the earliest a baby has been born and survived.

So, as a compromise... 22 weeks, woman's choice. Following 22 weeks, law protects the fetus.

But people will keep hemming and hawing about it for political gain.

EDIT: Now if a baby is ever born at say 20 weeks and survives, then adjust the law to 20 weeks etc. I personally think should only be available in cases of rape, incest, etc... but I understand a lot feel differently and people should have control over their own bodies. I think the above is a reasonable compromise.

[ClydeR]

If your argument is "WE NEED ABORTIONS FOR RAPE AND INCEST!" you've already lost. Stick to a woman's right.

What about women who get pregnant from a toilet seat?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

What about women who get pregnant from a toilet seat?

Respekt?

[Seran]

Ah okay, so this whole nonsense about a woman "accidentally" getting pregnant is just bullshit from you then?

Also why 21 weeks? What happens at 21 weeks where a fetus goes from non-human to human? Do you think the NY law is wrong wherein it allows abortion up until the moment before birth?

And lastly most laws written these days go after the person performing the abortion, not the woman herself.

Because the medical consensus is that between 21-24 weeks is when it becomes viable and have a chance to survive pre-term birth. Before that, it's utterly dependent on its host and thus considered a non-entity.

[Tgo01]

Because the medical consensus is that between 21-24 weeks is when it becomes viable and have a chance to survive pre-term birth. Before that, it's utterly dependent on its host and thus considered a non-entity.

Okay great. So let's say medical technology advances to the point where a fetus can survive outside the womb at 12, 14, or 16 weeks, would you be in favor of outlawing abortions after these weeks? Or is this yet more distraction from your bullshit?

[Gelston]

Okay great. So let's say medical technology advances to the point where a fetus can survive outside the womb at 12, 14, or 16 weeks, would you be in favor of outlawing abortions after these weeks? Or is this yet more distraction from your bullshit?

My wife says at fetal heartbeat, 6 weeks. I'm cool with viability outside the womb.

[Seran]

Okay great. So let's say medical technology advances to the point where a fetus can survive outside the womb at 12, 14, or 16 weeks, would you be in favor of outlawing abortions after these weeks? Or is this yet more distraction from your bullshit?

That's not an excuse for terminating a woman's right to choose. As I pointed out, my opinion is anytime between 21 weeks should be legal to abort a fetus. Medical advancements have no bearing on my decision.

[Flap]

Just LOL at the concepts being thrown around in here.

I think we should let women do whatever they want with their bodies. They're THEIR bodies, and each of them only gets one. Y'know, FREEDOM!

It's SO MUCH EASIER for a man to prevent pregnancy than it is a woman. Here's a woman's options for preventing pregnancy:

1) Abstinence. Hopefully y'all know better than to try to defend this one. If you really wanna go the kEeP yOuR lEgS cLoSeD route I'm ready tho.

2) Hormonal birth control. Both of my long-term sexual partners have seen this as a non-option because of how badly the hormones mess with their body and mood, especially when they are on the placebo portion of the treatment. The both tried using it to treat medical conditions(endometriosis and I forget the other one) and both said that the side effects were far worse than any benefit from the BC. It also lowers sex drive.

3) IUD. Requires surgery to install and remove.

4) Female condoms, sponges, diaphragms, other insert-able contraception. First off, I don't even know where you'd FIND a female condom. I've never seen one in a store, so not exactly easy to get. They all require preparation and inserting things into a body cavity that may or may not be primed to receive them.

All of them are orders of magnitude more difficult than rolling a rubber tube down a shaft. I should know, I did it on my wife's boyfriend thrice last week! It's easy!

5) Plan B. Horrible side effects. Several days of:
Nausea or vomiting.
Dizziness.
Fatigue.
Headache.
Breast tenderness.
Bleeding between periods or heavier menstrual bleeding.
Lower abdominal pain or cramps.

6) Other surgical options. Tubes tied, hysterectomy. Both not great options if you want to have kids later!

Male options:

1) Abstinence! Keep your dick in your pants! I'm not self aware or using sarcasm here at all!

2) Pulling out. I used this(plus timing and condoms during ovulation) effectively for over a decade. Had some close calls and had to use Plan B a few times, but I literally know from experience that it works when done right. My pelvic floor muscles are like fucking diamonds.

3) Condom. Very accessible(free at the health dept), easy to use, super effective. Yea, they lower sensitivity, but in my experience...when the mood is right, it's like that condom doesn't exist :drool:

[Gelston]

Condom was literally the first thing I said. Every option is still better than murdering a child.

[Wrathbringer]

Condom was literally the first thing I said. Every option is still better than murdering a child.

I agree, but it's not our choice to make for others via legislation. Conduct your life accordingly, if you like, but requiring the same standards of other people's bodies is a form of tyranny. All puritanical bullshit laws need to be struck down; abortion, no beer sales on sunday, dry counties, marijuana prohibition, prostitution, etc., all bullshit. Don't believe in partaking? Great, don't. Mind your business, you know? Freedom works.

[Flap]

Conduct your life accordingly, if you like, but requiring the same standards of other people's bodies is a form of tyranny. All puritanical bullshit laws need to be struck down; abortion, no beer sales on sunday, dry counties, marijuana prohibition, prostitution, etc., all bullshit. Don't believe in partaking? Great, don't. Mind your business, you know? Freedom works.

Hard agree.

I live in a dry county. It's sooooo stupid. It's legal in the city and in XYZ private properties in the county. So basically it's yet another law to jail the poors.

[Methais]

You understand that women have the freedom to have intercourse without being required to have a child? I know your beliefs relegate women as breeding boxes only, but the majority of the country disagrees.

This should swing both ways though. Right? If a chick insists on having a kid that a dude doesn't want, then well...


https://i.imgur.com/4wOIEQX.jpg

[Methais]

If your argument is "WE NEED ABORTIONS FOR RAPE AND INCEST!" you've already lost. Stick to a woman's right.

Also, it's just inseminated.



Inseminationated is my new band name.

[Flap]

Y'all got some weird-ass definitions of what a child is. When I think "child", I think of a kiddo older than a toddler. Obviously there's broader meanings, but that phrasing "murder a child" is pretty slanted to my eye.

Pro-birthers' position is that a new human being is present at the moment of conception, but scientifically that's fucking absurd. It's an egg and a sperm, doing what they do, and it has the potential to become a person. But first it has to be a symbiote and leech off an already-existing person for 9 months. The person it's feeding on has little say in the matter once the process starts, without abortion.

Also, astronomically more of these "people" die from natural causes before the mother is even aware of them, than from abortion. God sure does love murdering babies!

Say we let rest the question of whether or not that fertilized egg is a person. For this paragraph, it's a person. Why should we give it more rights than the person whose body it is using to grow into a baby? Taking care of your pregnant self is expensive! Isn't that little proto-person effectively stealing from the mother? When does she get paid back? Shouldn't she have the right to kick out a tenant in her own body that isn't paying rent or even buying its own food?

Okay, the little thief made it 9 months squatting in Mom's body, that lazy little goodfornothing is ready to be born, and is born healthy. BUT OH NO Mom is poor, she can't afford to take care of the little bastard. Too bad our social safety nets in this country have been gutted! Mom can go on food stamps and maybe work 2 jobs to get by and support her little unwanted baby, but it's barely enough to pay rent and keep Baby fed, because our wages in this country are super low! Mostly because of the same political party that the Pro-birthers are disproportionately in!

Or she can give Baby up for adoption. I don't know how y'all feel about that, but there's lots and lots of first-hand accounts of how horrible our nation's adoption system is. Add in the fact that a lot of adoptions are essentially legalized human trafficking, and this option starts to look pretty unsavory.

(Edit: Oops, got distracted by work and forgot to write the rest)

So, we can talk about when the moment it becomes a person is. I don't think that's a valuable discussion, though. Practically nobody remembers the womb, so nobody knows when they first were conscious. There's no empirical way to prove the cognitive state of a zygote, embryo, fetus.

I think the real discussion boils down to this: Should we value the life and rights of something(or someone) that has not yet been born, over an already existing life?

[Wrathbringer]

Bottom line, child or not, viable outside the womb or not...it's no one else's business. Everyone should be free to make the decision that is best for their body, whether it's an abortion or a vaccine roughly as effective as a flu shot from two years ago. If I choose an abortion, why is that anyone else's business? Because magic guy in the sky is going to be mad and send us more hurricanes and wildfires? Bullshit. Mind your business.

[ClydeR]

Or she can give Baby up for adoption. I don't know how y'all feel about that, but there's lots and lots of first-hand accounts of how horrible our nation's adoption system is. Add in the fact that a lot of adoptions are essentially legalized human trafficking, and this option starts to look pretty unsavory.


As Judge Barrett said repeatedly yesterday, under state "safe haven" laws, you can leave an unwanted baby at the fire station. Some fire stations even have heated "baby boxes" so you don't have go inside. Where did you think new firemen come from?

[Seran]

I agree, but it's not our choice to make for others via legislation. Conduct your life accordingly, if you like, but requiring the same standards of other people's bodies is a form of tyranny. All puritanical bullshit laws need to be struck down; abortion, no beer sales on sunday, dry counties, marijuana prohibition, prostitution, etc., all bullshit. Don't believe in partaking? Great, don't. Mind your business, you know? Freedom works.

The laws that Republicans in Congress and red leaning states pass to restrict personal freedoms are quite simply that, pushing a Judeo-Christian morality on our citizens. Which is strange, Republicans used to be all about limiting government intrusion and regulation. Yet circa the 1990s, the push to restrict or oppose abortion, gay marriage, prostitution (think websites which were once popular for escort services prior to the Republican led Online Sex Trafficking Act in 2018), opposition of trans people serving in the military, etc.,). All of this while simultaneously passing as many bills to de-regulate industrial pollution, FDA inspections, strengthening open carry laws.

Republicans want to be taken seriously co-opting the slogan "My Body My Choice" from the Woman's Right to Choose advocates when fighting against vaccination and social distancing measures, but doing their damndest to stop a woman's right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Republicans want elections to be fair by restricting voting access by limiting absentee and in-state vote by mail, by limiting the number of ballot collection points in states like Texas and Arizona. Republicans see balancing the budget as increasing spending on the military, farm subsidies and corporate research credits, all the while passing legislation to slash corporate tax rates, income tax rates predominantly affecting the richest 1%. All the while without doing a damn thing to cut spending to actually balance the budget.

[Seran]

As Judge Barrett said repeatedly yesterday, under state "safe haven" laws, you can leave an unwanted baby at the fire station. Some fire stations even have heated "baby boxes" so you don't have go inside. Where did you think new firemen come from?

Ironic that Justice Barrett also opposed mandates for contraceptives for employers in order to make it easier to prevent unwanted pregnancies altogether. Seems all too common for these Catholic justices to impose their religious dogma as jurisprudence. The hypocrisy of forcing a woman to bear a child to term, force her overcome her biological drive to nurture and protect her birthed child, with the end result being a woman suffering from depression and a newborn being parentless.

[beldannon5]

Everyone in this chat wasn't aborted. Just something to think about

[Bhaalizmo]

Everyone in this chat wasn't aborted. Just something to think about

A sorely missed opportunity, in the case of PB and TG01.

[Flap]

As Judge Barrett said repeatedly yesterday, under state "safe haven" laws, you can leave an unwanted baby at the fire station. Some fire stations even have heated "baby boxes" so you don't have go inside. Where did you think new firemen come from?

Those are just to keep the snacks warm for the Clintons, dummy. Real firemen undergo years of strenuous training, working their sweaty and glistening muscular bodies day and night. Really learning how to MASTER that fire pole ifyaknowwhatImean!

[Flap]

Everyone in this chat wasn't aborted. Just something to think about

Counterpoint: No one in this chat consented to being born. There's some pretty good arguments to be made for it being morally wrong to procreate. Obviously that position is kinda counterproductive to our existence as a species, but if you want to read up on some interesting crazy, check out Antinatalism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism

[Gelston]

Bottom line, child or not, viable outside the womb or not...it's no one else's business. Everyone should be free to make the decision that is best for their body, whether it's an abortion or a vaccine roughly as effective as a flu shot from two years ago. If I choose an abortion, why is that anyone else's business? Because magic guy in the sky is going to be mad and send us more hurricanes and wildfires? Bullshit. Mind your business.

No, because that is murder.

[Wrathbringer]

No, because that is murder.

People need to get over enforcing "the letter of the law". The spirit of a law exists before the legislation is written. We do our best to write out our intentions for each proposed law based upon this spirit, but due to the ambiguity of language, we need lawyers to continually revisit and interpret these laws to determine the original intent. The spirit of the law against murder is to discourage the killing of born people. The law was never intended to protect the unborn, which is why abortion isn't murder. If it was, it would be illegal under murder laws. It isn't.

[Gelston]

People need to get over enforcing "the letter of the law". The spirit of a law exists before the legislation is written. We do our best to write out our intentions for each proposed law based upon this spirit, but due to the ambiguity of language, we need lawyers to continually revisit and interpret these laws to determine the original intent. The spirit of the law against murder is to discourage the killing of born people. The law was never intended to protect the unborn, which is why abortion isn't murder. If it was, it would be illegal under murder laws. It isn't.

It isn't the "letter of the law" because right now abortion isn't illegal.

[LOL BRIELUS]

People need to get over enforcing "the letter of the law". The spirit of a law exists before the legislation is written. We do our best to write out our intentions for each proposed law based upon this spirit, but due to the ambiguity of language, we need lawyers to continually revisit and interpret these laws to determine the original intent. The spirit of the law against murder is to discourage the killing of born people. The law was never intended to protect the unborn, which is why abortion isn't murder. If it was, it would be illegal under murder laws. It isn't.

Some states will charge people who murder pregnant women with 2 counts of murder, or have specific laws addressing that. (Not abortion related).

[Gelston]

Some states will charge people who murder pregnant women with 2 counts of murder, or have specific laws addressing that. (Not abortion related).

That is what was always weird to me. Has that ever gone before the Supreme Court?

[Gelston]

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

.....

[LOL BRIELUS]

Not that I know of. What constitutional issue would arise from being charged with it?

[Methais]

Y'all got some weird-ass definitions of what a child is. When I think "child", I think of a kiddo older than a toddler. Obviously there's broader meanings, but that phrasing "murder a child" is pretty slanted to my eye.

Pro-birthers' position is that a new human being is present at the moment of conception, but scientifically that's fucking absurd. It's an egg and a sperm, doing what they do, and it has the potential to become a person. But first it has to be a symbiote and leech off an already-existing person for 9 months. The person it's feeding on has little say in the matter once the process starts, without abortion.

Also, astronomically more of these "people" die from natural causes before the mother is even aware of them, than from abortion. God sure does love murdering babies!

Say we let rest the question of whether or not that fertilized egg is a person. For this paragraph, it's a person. Why should we give it more rights than the person whose body it is using to grow into a baby? Taking care of your pregnant self is expensive! Isn't that little proto-person effectively stealing from the mother? When does she get paid back? Shouldn't she have the right to kick out a tenant in her own body that isn't paying rent or even buying its own food?

Okay, the little thief made it 9 months squatting in Mom's body, that lazy little goodfornothing is ready to be born, and is born healthy. BUT OH NO Mom is poor, she can't afford to take care of the little bastard. Too bad our social safety nets in this country have been gutted! Mom can go on food stamps and maybe work 2 jobs to get by and support her little unwanted baby, but it's barely enough to pay rent and keep Baby fed, because our wages in this country are super low! Mostly because of the same political party that the Pro-birthers are disproportionately in!

Or she can give Baby up for adoption. I don't know how y'all feel about that, but there's lots and lots of first-hand accounts of how horrible our nation's adoption system is. Add in the fact that a lot of adoptions are essentially legalized human trafficking, and this option starts to look pretty unsavory.

(Edit: Oops, got distracted by work and forgot to write the rest)

So, we can talk about when the moment it becomes a person is. I don't think that's a valuable discussion, though. Practically nobody remembers the womb, so nobody knows when they first were conscious. There's no empirical way to prove the cognitive state of a zygote, embryo, fetus.

I think the real discussion boils down to this: Should we value the life and rights of something(or someone) that has not yet been born, over an already existing life?

According to Obamacare, you're a child until you're 26 years old.


Abortion should be mandatory for leftists. Win/win for everyone.

[Flap]

According to Obamacare, you're a child until you're 26 years old.


Abortion should be mandatory for leftists. Win/win for everyone.

Got me.
https://www.dictionary.com/e/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/burn-meme-300x300.jpg

[Flap]

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

.....

Yea, that's Graham and Bush 2 trying to get a foothold to take down RvW.

...and in spite of my pro-abortion stance, as I always say, context matters. It's a whole different ball game if someone shoots my pregnant wife(with the BF's child of course) and kills their baby. Abortions are most often acts of compassion or necessity.

Violence against any expecting mother is atrocious, but it's especially tragic for someone who wants their baby to lose it. Again.........something I know about from experience, and I'll end the sentence there and not say the rest of what I'm feeling :)

For future reference, folks. This is what it looks like when I get actually triggered.

[Jeril]

Yea, that's Graham and Bush 2 trying to get a foothold to take down RvW.

...and in spite of my pro-abortion stance, as I always say, context matters. It's a whole different ball game if someone shoots my pregnant wife(with the BF's child of course) and kills their baby. Abortions are most often acts of compassion or necessity.

Violence against any expecting mother is atrocious, but it's especially tragic for someone who wants their baby to lose it. Again.........something I know about from experience, and I'll end the sentence there and not say the rest of what I'm feeling :)

For future reference, folks. This is what it looks like when I get actually triggered.

You become more rational? That doesn't make any sense. Sorry about whatever happen to you though.

[Methais]

The laws that Republicans in Congress and red leaning states pass to restrict personal freedoms are quite simply that, pushing a Judeo-Christian morality on our citizens. Which is strange, Republicans used to be all about limiting government intrusion and regulation. Yet circa the 1990s, the push to restrict or oppose abortion, gay marriage, prostitution (think websites which were once popular for escort services prior to the Republican led Online Sex Trafficking Act in 2018), opposition of trans people serving in the military, etc.,). All of this while simultaneously passing as many bills to de-regulate industrial pollution, FDA inspections, strengthening open carry laws.

Republicans want to be taken seriously co-opting the slogan "My Body My Choice" from the Woman's Right to Choose advocates when fighting against vaccination and social distancing measures, but doing their damndest to stop a woman's right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Republicans want elections to be fair by restricting voting access by limiting absentee and in-state vote by mail, by limiting the number of ballot collection points in states like Texas and Arizona. Republicans see balancing the budget as increasing spending on the military, farm subsidies and corporate research credits, all the while passing legislation to slash corporate tax rates, income tax rates predominantly affecting the richest 1%. All the while without doing a damn thing to cut spending to actually balance the budget.

"My body my choice" applies to covid vaccines too right? Right? Or does it only apply when you agree with the topic at hand?


Republicans want elections to be fair by restricting voting access by limiting absentee and in-state vote by mail,

Even France of all places did away with mail-in voting because they realized that it's bullshit and too open to corruption. France.

FRANCE!!!!!1one

France > you. And France is full of weak vaginaheads.

[Methais]

A sorely missed opportunity, in the case of myself. Thanks mom.

This is correct.

[Methais]

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

.....

Those god damn Homos...

[Flap]

You become more rational? That doesn't make any sense. Sorry about whatever happen to you though.

Such a heartfelt statement coming immediately after mockery! And you say I lack decorum, HA!

[Jeril]

Such a heartfelt statement coming immediately after mockery! And you say I lack decorum, HA!

I'm not a total monster, what can I say.

[Gelston]

Not that I know of. What constitutional issue would arise from being charged with it?

If they are considered a life for murder, why not for abortion?

[Gelston]

Yea, that's Graham and Bush 2 trying to get a foothold to take down RvW.

...and in spite of my pro-abortion stance, as I always say, context matters. It's a whole different ball game if someone shoots my pregnant wife(with the BF's child of course) and kills their baby. Abortions are most often acts of compassion or necessity.

Violence against any expecting mother is atrocious, but it's especially tragic for someone who wants their baby to lose it. Again.........something I know about from experience, and I'll end the sentence there and not say the rest of what I'm feeling :)

For future reference, folks. This is what it looks like when I get actually triggered.

Sorry if this confuses you. I'll make it clear. I consider you a troll and a retard, so none of my responses or posts after this one will ever be directed at you. Thank you and good bye.

[kutter]

Yea, that's Graham and Bush 2 trying to get a foothold to take down RvW.

...and in spite of my pro-abortion stance, as I always say, context matters. It's a whole different ball game if someone shoots my pregnant wife(with the BF's child of course) and kills their baby. Abortions are most often acts of compassion or necessity.

Violence against any expecting mother is atrocious, but it's especially tragic for someone who wants their baby to lose it. Again.........something I know about from experience, and I'll end the sentence there and not say the rest of what I'm feeling :)

For future reference, folks. This is what it looks like when I get actually triggered.

I do not know what is more sad, that you said this or that you may actually believe it. I am grudgingly pro-choice but even I know that most abortions are acts of expediency. Abortion is far to often used as a form of birth control, to say otherwise is just a plain lie.

[Tgo01]

That's not an excuse for terminating a woman's right to choose. As I pointed out, my opinion is anytime between 21 weeks should be legal to abort a fetus. Medical advancements have no bearing on my decision.

Okay so just more bullshit from you.

[Seran]

Okay so just more bullshit from you.

Disrespect from the conservative right, whatever shall I do.

[Jeril]

Disrespect from the conservative right, whatever shall I do.

How is that disrespect? Especially from someone who in regards to covid has claimed that we should follow the science. Shouldn't the same hold true for abortion? That if the fetus is able to live independently of the mother, that it should have a right to life and not be aborted? Honestly I'm not sure what Tog's batting average on this sort of thing is but in this instant, he is correct, your answer was bullshit.

[Tgo01]

Disrespect from the conservative right, whatever shall I do.

Yes, we all know how comfortable you are defending your dumb ass positions with a bunch of bullshit then as soon as your own words contradict your own argument you just brush that off and continue being a horrible person.

Seran: I arbitrarily chose 21 weeks because that's what the scientists tell us is when a baby is viable outside the womb!!!!!
Tgo01: And if medical science allows babies to survive outside the womb at 14 weeks do we make abortions illegal after 14 weeks?
Seran: NO!!!!! 21 weeks!!!!!! You can't restrict a woman's right to choose at all!!!!!!!!

For real, what is even your rationale for this? Literally every other human being on the planet has the right to prolong their life via medical technology but premature babies don't? They have to survive all on their own or else tough shit for them?

You then go to bed at night and somehow get a restful night's sleep knowing what a completely fucked up position you hold because you have somehow fooled yourself into thinking you are a compassionate person.

[Tgo01]

Honestly I'm not sure what Tog's batting average on this sort of thing is

1000

[Seran]

How is that disrespect? Especially from someone who in regards to covid has claimed that we should follow the science. Shouldn't the same hold true for abortion? That if the fetus is able to live independently of the mother, that it should have a right to life and not be aborted? Honestly I'm not sure what Tog's batting average on this sort of thing is but in this instant, he is correct, your answer was bullshit.

For the same reason why it cannot survive on its own, without extreme medical intervention. I bet you're one of those folks who believe that people suffering from brain death should be kept on life support until "God decides its their time."

Scientific advancement isn't a substitute for forcing a mother to keep an unwanted child. Anymore than the religious right should be able to determine her ability to get a safe abortion rather than performing one on herself.

[Seran]

Yes, we all know how comfortable you are defending your dumb ass positions with a bunch of bullshit then as soon as your own words contradict your own argument you just brush that off and continue being a horrible person.

Seran: I arbitrarily chose 21 weeks because that's what the scientists tell us is when a baby is viable outside the womb!!!!!
Tgo01: And if medical science allows babies to survive outside the womb at 14 weeks do we make abortions illegal after 14 weeks?
Seran: NO!!!!! 21 weeks!!!!!! You can't restrict a woman's right to choose at all!!!!!!!!

For real, what is even your rationale for this? Literally every other human being on the planet has the right to prolong their life via medical technology but premature babies don't? They have to survive all on their own or else tough shit for them?

You then go to bed at night and somehow get a restful night's sleep knowing what a completely fucked up position you hold because you have somehow fooled yourself into thinking you are a compassionate person.

Arbitrary? How about consistent. More than 3/4ths of the country have a limit between 21-24 weeks. I choose 21 weeks as a early development safety measure according to /my/ beliefs.

[Tgo01]

Arbitrary?

It's completely arbitrary because you claimed that's the number you have chosen because that's what experts say is when a baby can survive outside the womb and when I said what if someday medical science allowed a baby to survive outside the womb at 14 weeks you then shoved your fingers so far into your ears you caused even more brain damage and said "You can't restrict a woman's right to choose!!1111!!!!!"

[Flap]

Sorry if this confuses you. I'll make it clear. I consider you a troll and a retard, so none of my responses or posts after this one will ever be directed at you. Thank you and good bye.

Cool, I don't care. Is it okay if I keep quoting you and responding to your posts? I just like to call out bullshit when I see it, is all.

[Flap]

I do not know what is more sad, that you said this or that you may actually believe it. I am grudgingly pro-choice but even I know that most abortions are acts of expediency. Abortion is far to often used as a form of birth control, to say otherwise is just a plain lie.

Yea, it's probably going to be the answer that makes you sadder. I don't value the rights of a quasi-being that has yet to experience the world over the needs of any person that's of child-bearing age. I'm frankly not well enough versed in the science to judge when it becomes a person. I do know that the idea of destroying anything resembling a baby makes my stomach turn. I wouldn't want to destroy anything of mine that got beyond a certain point, but it's not my choice to make for others.

You say expediency, I say compassion. Why would you, first off, condemn a child to live with a mother that doesn't want it, and vice versa? It's a terrible situation to put both people in, and the child could not and did not consent to being placed in said situation. Add poverty into the mix and you've got a miserable life in a cruel world to look forward to!

They also didn't consent to being a baby thrown to the winds of fate, and by that I mean the adoption system.

You say it's used as birth control, as if it's not almost always a last resort form of birth control. It's a surgical procedure in many cases, or a series of pills that make you really sick and make you hurt and bleed a ton. No one would choose to do this flippantly!

[Parkbandit]

Arbitrary? How about consistent. More than 3/4ths of the country have a limit between 21-24 weeks. I choose 21 weeks as a early development safety measure according to /my/ beliefs.

What specifically happens to a fetus at 21 weeks that doesn't happen at 20 or 22?

[Parkbandit]

Yea, it's probably going to be the answer that makes you sadder. I don't value the rights of a quasi-being that has yet to experience the world over the needs of any person that's of child-bearing age.

So, you are for abortion to include up to the day the quasi-being is born? Or do you believe that it should go further.. that the baby isn't really 'experiencing' the world because they won't have memories of anything before say 3 years old.. so should abortion be up to the mother to say up to 3 years of age?


I'm frankly not well enough

Truer words have never been posted by you here.

[Flap]

So, you are for abortion to include up to the day the quasi-being is born?

No

[Parkbandit]

No

No?

Here's your post again:


I don't value the rights of a quasi-being that has yet to experience the world over the needs of any person that's of child-bearing age.

I don't know of a single fetus inside the womb that has experienced the world until it's actually born.

Unless you believe that just being in the fetus is experiencing the world... then you would be pro-life.

Care to elaborate?

[Shaps]

No?

Here's your post again:



I don't know of a single fetus inside the womb that has experienced the world until it's actually born.

Unless you believe that just being in the fetus is experiencing the world... then you would be pro-life.

Care to elaborate?

I disagree with a lot of what Flap says, but in this I get what he is trying to say. I think he went with 21 weeks, as I have stated before. I got there based on this... https://www.wionews.com/world/boy-in-us-state-of-alabama-sets-record-as-most-premature-baby-to-survive-428538

Youngest ever born child to survive was at 21 weeks.

He stated he personally wouldn't want to abort a child.. and that is his decision. He also stated people have rights over their body, which he wouldn't want to make choices about. I agree on that also.

As a Nation, sadly, a compromise from a legal standpoint I'm able to agree upon is under 22 weeks - abortions are allowed. Over 22 weeks - abortions are not allowed. This is solely a compromise from a legal perspective, not a humane or moral one, in a country with millions of people that feel differently. I don't have to like it, but I can live with it.

If a child is ever born and breaks that record, then the law should change accordingly. IE. an 18 week old baby survives, the law changes to 18 week cap on abortion.

I like busting his balls too, but in this regard I think he's trying to find a balance between personal belief and societal compromise in a legal sense.

I don't like the situation as is, because I think there is enough contraception's and Plan-B options available for immediate use after having sex - and people should be responsible for their own actions, not blaming others for their idiotic behavior and planning... but that is not the world we live in unfortunately, and people are fucking idiots.

[Seran]

It's completely arbitrary because you claimed that's the number you have chosen because that's what experts say is when a baby can survive outside the womb and when I said what if someday medical science allowed a baby to survive outside the womb at 14 weeks you then shoved your fingers so far into your ears you caused even more brain damage and said "You can't restrict a woman's right to choose!!1111!!!!!"

I can't control that you've taken it upon yourself to assume that's my only reason, nor do I grant the premise you think that the entire abortion industry can be made irrelevant by decreasing gestational needs a couple weeks. You should ask your wife or girlfriend what they think of your opinions.

[Tgo01]

I can't control that you've taken it upon yourself to assume that's my only reason

Oh okay. So when I asked what your reasoning was and you only gave that as a response that wasn’t really your only reasoning. Because of course!

Are you going to enlighten me as to what your other reasons for 21 weeks are?

[Methais]

Oh okay. So when I asked what your reasoning was and you only gave that as a response that wasn’t really your only reasoning. Because of course!

Are you going to enlighten me as to what your other reasons for 21 weeks are?

He will as soon as he thinks of something.

[Parkbandit]

I disagree with a lot of what Flap says, but in this I get what he is trying to say. I think he went with 21 weeks, as I have stated before. I got there based on this... https://www.wionews.com/world/boy-in-us-state-of-alabama-sets-record-as-most-premature-baby-to-survive-428538

Youngest ever born child to survive was at 21 weeks.

He stated he personally wouldn't want to abort a child.. and that is his decision. He also stated people have rights over their body, which he wouldn't want to make choices about. I agree on that also.

I hadn't read any of his posts that said 21 weeks.. but then again, I usually skip most of his nonsense trolling. He said he wouldn't put a fetus who hasn't had any world experience before the mother's right to choose.. so that screamed up to and including delivery to me.


As a Nation, sadly, a compromise from a legal standpoint I'm able to agree upon is under 22 weeks - abortions are allowed. Over 22 weeks - abortions are not allowed. This is solely a compromise from a legal perspective, not a humane or moral one, in a country with millions of people that feel differently. I don't have to like it, but I can live with it.

If a child is ever born and breaks that record, then the law should change accordingly. IE. an 18 week old baby survives, the law changes to 18 week cap on abortion.

I like busting his balls too, but in this regard I think he's trying to find a balance between personal belief and societal compromise in a legal sense.

I'm pro-choice.. but I can understand the other argument that they are looking to protect the innocent child's rights.

I don't view abortion as some holy grail issue as others do.


I don't like the situation as is, because I think there is enough contraception's and Plan-B options available for immediate use after having sex - and people should be responsible for their own actions, not blaming others for their idiotic behavior and planning... but that is not the world we live in unfortunately, and people are fucking idiots.

When it comes to sex.. especially when you are young.. you do stupid things... especially when alcohol is involved.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I'm getting fucked up tonight at a bar, so expect to say some outlandish shit soon.

Lyft is my angel tonight.

[Gelston]

I'm getting fucked up tonight at a bar, so expect to say some outlandish shit soon.

Lyft is my angel tonight.

no

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

no

No to the outlandish shit, or no to the bar... just saying, no to the bar is a little late

[Seran]

Oh okay. So when I asked what your reasoning was and you only gave that as a response that wasn’t really your only reasoning. Because of course!

Are you going to enlighten me as to what your other reasons for 21 weeks are?

Week 22 - Average number of weeks to survivability outside womb
Week 24 - Average number of weeks until fetus capable of feeling pain
Week 15-20 - Earliest safe amniocentesis and screening for genetic defect
Week 22 - Average legal abortion limit, barring medical or exceptional reason

21 weeks earlier than most developmental milestones that I personally consider ethical boundaries, barring force majeure. 21 weeks also ensures that an amniocentesis will be able to determine any genetic defects that would cause the mother or the child a life of pan, suffering and hardship.

21 weeks, basically 5 months also provides plenty of time after the average point a woman will notice the signs of a pregnancy and to make a rational decision about whether they want to have a child or not. Being irresponsible and getting pregnant, being raped, or simply changing their mind, doesn't mean a woman should be punished and forced to bear a child to term as a repercussion.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

No to the outlandish shit, or no to the bar... just saying, no to the bar is a little late

If it was about Lyft being my ride, due they are keeping me safe and deserve .2% gratuity and a word or two extolling their greatness.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Not .2%, 20% gratuity.

[Tgo01]

or simply changing their mind, doesn't mean a woman should be punished and forced to bear a child to term as a repercussion.

Okay and "simply changing their mind" suddenly becomes unethical at 22 weeks and it's okay to "force" her to bear a child?

[Seran]

Okay and "simply changing their mind" suddenly becomes unethical at 22 weeks and it's okay to "force" her to bear a child?

Way to ask for clarification and then ignoring the rest of the post. "Yeah but," is a waste of my time.

[Tgo01]

Way to ask for clarification and then ignoring the rest of the post. "Yeah but," is a waste of my time.

I read your entire post, which is something I rarely do these days. You gave a lot of reasons for what happens at week this, and what happens at week that, and you finally come to the conclusion that abortion prior to 21 weeks is "ethical" to you in part because if gives women plenty of time to "change their mind" about having a baby. You then ended your nonsense by stating a woman shouldn't be "forced to bear a child to term."

Okay so given all of your bullshit I just want to see if I finally understand your dumb shit:

21 weeks: Plenty of time for a woman to realize she is pregnant and change her mind if she so chooses. Doesn't force her to bear a child to term. Is ethical to you to perform an abortion at this stage or before.
7 days later at 22 weeks: Too much time for a woman to change her mind, forces a woman to bear a child to term if she changes her mind at 22 weeks, is unethical to you to perform an abortion at this stage.

Please let me know where I misunderstood you. Thank you.

[Seran]

I read your entire post, which is something I rarely do these days. You gave a lot of reasons for what happens at week this, and what happens at week that, and you finally come to the conclusion that abortion prior to 21 weeks is "ethical" to you in part because if gives women plenty of time to "change their mind" about having a baby. You then ended your nonsense by stating a woman shouldn't be "forced to bear a child to term."

Okay so given all of your bullshit I just want to see if I finally understand your dumb shit:

21 weeks: Plenty of time for a woman to realize she is pregnant and change her mind if she so chooses. Doesn't force her to bear a child to term. Is ethical to you to perform an abortion at this stage or before.
7 days later at 22 weeks: Too much time for a woman to change her mind, forces a woman to bear a child to term if she changes her mind at 22 weeks, is unethical to you to perform an abortion at this stage.

Please let me know where I misunderstood you. Thank you.

This should have been your post to begin with. Your usual slander, followed by an example of not following the argument. Promptly not followed by your own thoughts on why my points are wrong.

I just name all the reasons why I thought 21 weeks was fair, you zeroed in on one, just one thing demanding further justification of my thoughts which I'd just given you in the post. That's why your "Yeah but" argument is a waste of my time.

A woman doesn't need a reason to have an abortion, so says the law. But I've given you my reasons why 22 weeks makes it medically and ethically a line in the sand for me. So answer your own question. Is abortion ever acceptable to you? Is there a circumstance where it is and when do you think those circumstances end? And why?

Your buddy Shaps came up with an inspiringly good post about why they believe abortion should be legal, up to a point. But best of all, they admit it's none of their business before that. Hands down, one of the most thought provoking posts I've seen from a right winger aside from SHM.

[Tgo01]

But I've given you my reasons why 22 weeks makes it medically and ethically a line in the sand for me.

Okay that's great. I'm just asking for some clarification from you here. So 21 weeks is ethical and restricting it any further forces a woman to bear a child she doesn't want, but 7 days later abortion is unethical and you're just fine and dandy with a woman being forced to bear a child she doesn't want. Tell me how I'm misstating your argument.


Is abortion ever acceptable to you? Is there a circumstance where it is and when do you think those circumstances end?

Prior to the fetus being able to survive outside of the womb I am fine with abortion if the mother's life or health is in danger, if the fetus is able to survive outside the womb then no.

I used to be even more pro-abortion than you are until Democrats went completely batshit insane after the 2016 election and showed their true colors and turned the entire abortion debate into a complete debacle with "celebrities" thanking abortion for why they were able to have a career in Hollywood and others saying they wish they had gotten pregnant just so they could have had an abortion. Just really showed how truly evil the Democrat party was and I wanted absolutely nothing to do with that.

[Shaps]

I'm not a right winger.. I'm a liberal.

[Gelston]

Okay that's great. I'm just asking for some clarification from you here. So 21 weeks is ethical and restricting it any further forces a woman to bear a child she doesn't want, but 7 days later abortion is unethical and you're just fine and dandy with a woman being forced to bear a child she doesn't want. Tell me how I'm misstating your argument.



Prior to the fetus being able to survive outside of the womb I am fine with abortion if the mother's life or health is in danger, if the fetus is able to survive outside the womb then no.

I used to be even more pro-abortion than you are until Democrats went completely batshit insane after the 2016 election and showed their true colors and turned the entire abortion debate into a complete debacle with "celebrities" thanking abortion for why they were able to have a career in Hollywood and others saying they wish they had gotten pregnant just so they could have had an abortion. Just really showed how truly evil the Democrat party was and I wanted absolutely nothing to do with that.

I'm fine with abortion at anytime if the mother's life is in danger.

[Tgo01]

I'm fine with abortion at anytime if the mother's life is in danger.

If the fetus is able to survive outside of the womb there is almost no situation where an abortion is needed instead of a c-section.

If there are any situations where an abortion would save the mother's life but a c-section wouldn't then I would be fine with that too.

[Gelston]

If the fetus is able to survive outside of the womb there is almost no situation where an abortion is needed instead of a c-section.

If there are any situations where an abortion would save the mother's life but a c-section wouldn't then I would be fine with that too.

There are plenty where it wouldn't.

[~Rocktar~]

So, here we have the stupid argument, the Left with Seran on one side arguing semantics, minutia as well as arguing to the extreme and the Right falling into that trap and pissing around.

The fact is, 99.9% of all abortions are not in the extremes, they are there because the mother has buyer's remorse and doesn't want responsibility for her actions.

Just to be clear, the Right has conceded the following:
1. All proven cases of rape, incest or molestation.
2. All cases where it would genuinely save the mother's life medically, not the BS that has been proposed, the real issue of carrying the baby will kill the mother.
3. Early term abortion re. The Day After pill or Plan B.

The Left has conceded the following:
1. Nothing.

So here is the issue Seran and you other Leftist shits. No matter how you want to argue it, you are arguing to support the intentional murder of a life, the ending of a heartbeat of a being that could become a valuable member of society. No one accidentally gets an abortion, no one accidentally does an abortion and no one who goes and gets one doesn't understand that it is killing the baby. Not even the most ignorant out there fail to understand that it is killing the baby. You are just trying to argue semantics and BS in order to make it seem like you are compassionate or moral or to assuage your conscience. So, if killing babies is ok, then why not kill troublesome children? How about troublesome adults? What about the disabled or mentally insane or the just plain too stupid to function, you know the IQ 87 and under people?

Abortion is, in my opinion, eugenics hidden in plain sight. Margret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood was an eugenicist and argued for killing off the black race and they are responsible for killing off nearly a million a year.

I hope that there are some substantial restrictions placed on abortion and the horror of late term abortion that the Left and certain states have passed is ended. I also want to see reform in adoption to make it easier, faster and less expensive.

End systemic, racist, murder.

[Seran]

And here comes Rocktar with the true feelings of the Conservatives who have been leading the Republicans into self-destruction. The ignorance of your belief that ending safe abortions in a safe, controlled environment will stop women from self-abortion is insane. What you're going to have is a lot more women injuring or killing themselves trying to free themselves from their mistakes.

[Seran]

Okay that's great. I'm just asking for some clarification from you here. So 21 weeks is ethical and restricting it any further forces a woman to bear a child she doesn't want, but 7 days later abortion is unethical and you're just fine and dandy with a woman being forced to bear a child she doesn't want. Tell me how I'm misstating your argument.



Prior to the fetus being able to survive outside of the womb I am fine with abortion if the mother's life or health is in danger, if the fetus is able to survive outside the womb then no.

I used to be even more pro-abortion than you are until Democrats went completely batshit insane after the 2016 election and showed their true colors and turned the entire abortion debate into a complete debacle with "celebrities" thanking abortion for why they were able to have a career in Hollywood and others saying they wish they had gotten pregnant just so they could have had an abortion. Just really showed how truly evil the Democrat party was and I wanted absolutely nothing to do with that.

I'm not sure if you're just unable to understand written words or you're trying to waste my time by trolling for different answers.

Plain and simple, a woman should be able to abort without need for justification prior to 21 weeks and you have my reasons why I think that's acceptable. Past 21 weeks, when the fetal pain receptors are developed, when the pseudo-brain is formed- the risk that the fetus would suffer as it's aborted is too much for me.

Unless there's a legitimate risk to the health or life of the mother, I do not support abortions after 21 weeks.

[Tgo01]

I'm not sure if you're just unable to understand written words or you're trying to waste my time by trolling for different answers.

Plain and simple, a woman should be able to abort without need for justification prior to 21 weeks and you have my reasons why I think that's acceptable. Past 21 weeks, when the fetal pain receptors are developed, when the pseudo-brain is formed- the risk that the fetus would suffer as it's aborted is too much for me.

Unless there's a legitimate risk to the health or life of the mother, I do not support abortions after 21 weeks.

Okay so you want to force a woman to carry a baby to term if she doesn’t get an abortion before 21 weeks and she changes her mind. I still fail to see how I am misrepresenting your position.

[Flap]

I disagree with a lot of what Flap says, but in this I get what he is trying to say. I think he went with 21 weeks, as I have stated before. I got there based on this... https://www.wionews.com/world/boy-in-us-state-of-alabama-sets-record-as-most-premature-baby-to-survive-428538

Youngest ever born child to survive was at 21 weeks.

He stated he personally wouldn't want to abort a child.. and that is his decision. He also stated people have rights over their body, which he wouldn't want to make choices about. I agree on that also.

As a Nation, sadly, a compromise from a legal standpoint I'm able to agree upon is under 22 weeks - abortions are allowed. Over 22 weeks - abortions are not allowed. This is solely a compromise from a legal perspective, not a humane or moral one, in a country with millions of people that feel differently. I don't have to like it, but I can live with it.

If a child is ever born and breaks that record, then the law should change accordingly. IE. an 18 week old baby survives, the law changes to 18 week cap on abortion.

I like busting his balls too, but in this regard I think he's trying to find a balance between personal belief and societal compromise in a legal sense.

I don't like the situation as is, because I think there is enough contraception's and Plan-B options available for immediate use after having sex - and people should be responsible for their own actions, not blaming others for their idiotic behavior and planning... but that is not the world we live in unfortunately, and people are fucking idiots.

Hey, thanks!

I've got some company this weekend and can't get up to my usual level of rascalry at the moment, but I really appreciate this post.

To clarify, I haven't picked a specific time. Every person's situation is unique. Personally I wouldn't abort anything that even vaguely resembles a baby, but it's not my choice to make for others.

[~Rocktar~]

And here comes Rocktar with the true feelings of the Conservatives who have been leading the Republicans into self-destruction. The ignorance of your belief that ending safe abortions in a safe, controlled environment will stop women from self-abortion is insane. What you're going to have is a lot more women injuring or killing themselves trying to free themselves from their mistakes.

That's not what I said but we know reading comprehension is not your strong point.

You are one of the strongest arguments for post partum abortion in any trimester.