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

No, the father still needs to be responsible.

The state don't force the women to get pregnant but they force them to give birth, so they should be responsible as well.
They also do get something out of it. Labor. Economy contribution. Taxes.

 

so if the mother and father are responsible they should just get an award from the state or should the state be the child's Mommy?

You can't give birth if you don't get pregnant so nobody forces a person to give birth unless they also force them to get pregnant so still the state's hands are clean here.

If a woman is pregnant it's nature that forces them to give birth or miscarry.

 

HILARIOUS!--

Avoiding parenthood for a woman, you think, should be as easy as it is for a man; and to think differently, is misogynistic.

News flash-- when men don't want to be fathers, they take a hike. Watch Lauren Lake's Paternity Court, or Maury Povich episodes that revolve around the, "who's the father?" question.

It's not quite the same situation, for the woman...they are, "smart enough to figure that out," even if you are not.

While I'm explaining that, basic info, I might as well answer your other questions--

so, do you know where babies come from?

 

They should get assistance, not award, for being forced.

You can't give birth if you get an abortion too.
If abortion is not an option then you are forced to give birth, then, whoever forces you to give birth should be responsible as well.

 

because it's correct?

well I believe in equality not special rights for special people.

so you're not aware that child support is often times court ordered and that's typically what those types of shows are about?

so there's no reason for anyone to have an abortion?

Well if I listen to you on where babies come from apparently there's a magical fairy that finds a woman pregnant with a bunch of toasters or non-human entities and upon birth waves her wand and magically out pops a baby it's not what I remember from biology class but everyone has their own beliefs.

 

awarding them with assistance just because is an award the text breaks for dependents aren't enough?

right slaying your baby in the womb we'll stop it from being born but that doesn't mean the state is forcing you to give birth by not letting you slay it. That's nature or biology forcing you to give birth slaying your baby in the womb is a way to subvert nature.

no you're not because in order to force someone to give birth they most first be pregnant and they must first have been forced to become pregnant and that's not the case it's nature forcing you to give birth not allowing you to put out a hit on your baby before it's born has nothing to do with nature.

 

Nope, if you want that baby to be born then you better be prepared to take care of it.

 

Right if you want to get pregnant and have a baby it's your responsibility to take care of it not the state's

If you're not ready to be a parent use birth control.

 

You're quoting my writing to a particular person - not a group of people.

Some will argue that it isn't a human being. Other's like @Cybred don't care whether it is a human being or not. Killing him or her to stop the inconvenience to the woman so that she doesn't have to be pregnant is A-OK for them.

Some want to claim that the babies are like malignant or benign growths but why wouldn't they agree to illegalize abortion weeks before delivery?

The official position of the DNC is that it is ok to stab the baby in the head while it is crowning. I was part of the DNC in Texas and I tried to convince them to just stop abortion a month before birth, but they wouldn't have it. Do you think that people are naturally good and wouldn't want to murder humans they find inconvenient?

Look at Mao, Stalin, and Hitler's regimes. All of the people they lead got rid of people they considered to be inconvenient. Ony the selection process and methods of execution differed.

 

Except that YOU are the one forcing her to bear the child.

 

My thing was mostly about the language policing. There's two reasons for this. It's either poisoning the well or to give the impression of sanitizing what's really happening.

When poisoning the well it's so they can say no and unborn baby isn't an unborn baby it's a fetus people in lab coats call it a fetus because that's the medical term for it and it doesn't mean baby it means toaster or whatever and anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot. This isn't an effort to change minds it's an effort to keep the sheep in the field.

Then there's the attempt to sanitize it they don't want to think about it as a baby it's harder to kill.

The reason why I think that they won't even entertain any kind of compromise on this is because babies born today that would have otherwise been aborted in 20 years they're going to be men and women and these people that support this will have to look at these kids and think to themselves "I voted to have you killed."

Yes I do think they know it's wrong the only reason they think it's okay to kill the baby in the womb but not out of it is because they actually have to see the baby drowning or the knife being plunged into its brain. When it's inside of the mother they don't have to see it.

They don't have to close their eyes and be haunted by that face. I think 95% of the people that had abortions would be if they had to see it that's why they fought so hard against requiring them to see the sonogram.

 

Of course, your completely ignoring the fact that it's inhabiting another person's body, one that IS NOT YOURS.

 

Nope, it's very simple, if the woman doesn't want it inhabiting her body she has every right to have it removed even if this results in its death

 

Only if I forced her to get pregnant and that's not the case. Biology is forcing her to Bear the child the only way you get out of it is if you intervene with biology.

Forbidding the intervention doesn't mean forcing birth.

There's no way you're going to ever convince me that women are forced to be pregnant and then have children that is a choice.

 

No actually she doesn't there is no right enumerated anywhere. There is a flimsy court case that has been challenged.

You have to amend the Constitution if you want it to be a right.

 

Tax breaks don't do enough. Children are huge money/time sinks.

We don't go by how "nature" is. We have laws. Nature is doing whatever we want, and the strongest men would just kill the weaker ones and rob and rape everything.

So if the law bans women from exercising their freedom, it must make up for it. In this case, forcing women to give birth should result in providing assistance.

Nature doesn't force you to give birth. You are free to get an abortion if not for laws governing people.

 

Didn't say you forced her to be pregnant, you ARE forcing her to give birth by taking away an option for her not to.

 

9th

 

Me? I have lived in a state that until recently had one of the most restrictive abortion laws anywhere and it did bubkiss to reduce the LEGAL abortion rate and do you know what might kill THIS bill? The “medical emergency “ clause because who determines what constitutes a medical emergency - just look at the Savita Halappanavar case in Ireland - they had a similar law and it led to a young woman’s death as they coukd not determine what constitutes a medical emergency

This law WILL be overturned but not before we lose more young women

 

so it should be incumbent upon you and not the state to think about consequences of your actions before you act.

People should take care of their own kids if they don't want to then they shouldn't have them. It's really simple

which is exactly why there's no law saying you have to get pregnant and you have to give birth just possibility of a law forbidding you from slaying the baby in the womb which is an appropriate law. If you don't want to experience that part of nature you don't have to there's ways where we can intervene with nature that don't result in pregnancy.

killing is not a freedom that anybody has.

The state is not Banning freedom it is Banning killing abortion is not a right.

If there was no law against murder you could have bought your kids at 5 years after birth we have laws about these things and abortion is not a right.

Case in point Texas law.

 

Show me the text where it says women are entitled to abortion.

 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. This means that just because it's not specifically listed doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

Delete

 

I think in this case it applies too if California in their state constitution guaranteed the citizens the right to an abortion that the federal government couldn't then step in and say no.

It isn't recognized as a right in Texas so it's not any certain right. Ninth Amendment doesn't apply.