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

If you want science, then a fertilized human egg is a human. It's not a dog. It's not a cancerous tumor. It is a child.

 

The woman has to prove it was a natural miscarriage and not induced. This is the door these laws open.

 

No, she doesn't. But hey, don't let little things like facts get in the way of your rants. Kudos. Get all that frustration out.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
She may be "with child" ( a very nonscientific phrase) but she has not birthed a child and is not a mother until she does.
Here's a phrase for you: "EXPECTING a child".

Hey , nice "look over here" distraction from what we were discussing


A fertilized human egg is NOT A human...it IS human but NOT A human...as in born legal person.

 

Then the 6 week period for abortion makes no sense. The safest thing for the child is that the human incubator is strapped to a bed for the next 9 months and fed a perfect diet for the growth of the child, anything less is reckless endangerment of the child

 

Why wouldn't she have to prove it?

BTW, it's extremely hard, if not impossible, to tell the difference between an abortion and a miscarriage...so EVERY woman who miscarries is open to charges and investigations..

 

If she is involved in any of these law suits, she does.

 

That was a compromise. I'm sure you know what that term means.

 

human

Well, it wasn't addressed to you so it's your right......but the snide remark is noted.

Sure, go ahead

Sure

 

Why are you not paying attention? We all know what Plan B is for, and in this conversation, specifically, we were discussing criminal sexual encounters. As a woman, likely you should know that Plan B is there, and can address the potential outcomes of those criminal acts. Why not just read the conversation to understand the context before you launch ranting wall of text next time.

 

The truth is a mindless embryo isn't a person and so is morally irrelevant. And the truth is also that even if you preach things like abstinence, people will still have sex, contraception will still sometimes fail, and people will still have abortions.

 

No, she doesn't have to prove anything. All the plaintiff will need to prove is that the abortion provider provided an abortion in violation of the statute.

Natural miscarriages have nothing to do with it, contrary to your claim.

 

It's an idealistic and foolish thought. Policy needs to be crafted on its affects, not on what people "should" do. Incentives for positive behavior are good, but just banking on people doing the right thing is what's foolish.

 

There are, and have been many challenges since the decision in 1973. Whatever are you yammering about here? And to put a super fine point on it, why the histrionics? The ban applies after a heart beat. Usually 6-8 weeks after the act. This seems super concerning to you. Why?

 

Political expediency trumps the life of the child in your book.
Either it's a child before 6 weeks and after 6 weeks or it is not.
So it's not about science, or medical needs, it's about politics.
Why am I not surprised.

 

Because you apparently don't know what a compromise is. That's on you, not me.

Society need not bend to the most ignorant among us.

 

Because things can go wrong with a pregnancy and/or the mother after the 6 - 8 week period. Mental health, physical health, all
can change.

 

If the life of the mother is in danger, the Texas law allows the abortion. So your argument here is pointless.

 

Which are all conditions contained within the TX statute. Now, recreational abortions,.... that's another story.

 

LOL.... these folks just can't be bothered to actually read.... Just raw hysteria....

 

Only as life saving measure. If there is a question as to whether the abortion is life saving, the doctors would not risk
the procedure. So a woman who has a 20% chance of not surviving the pregnancy is going to be forced
to take that risk.

 

Facts don't often factor into leftists' "feelings".

 

If the mental health of a woman is at risk - sorry, she is out of luck.

 

Speculative fear doesn't make any logical sense.

 

If a doctor reasonably believes that the abortion will save the life of the mother, it's permitted. There's no quantifying test that says 10%, 20%, 30%, etc.