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

If the mother's husband walks out on her in the 7th week and suddenly she no means to support the child - sorry, she's out of luck.

 

Mental health is typically a vague, abused excuse for all sorts of defenses.

 

You think a doctor is going to risk going to jail if the family comes back at him and says they have
a doctor who thinks it wasn't necessary?

 

A great point. That's very typical in blue districts. I'd advise women living in blue districts to get on birth control and check themselves after they sleep around.

 

I think doctors can accurately diagnose a pregnancy that has a risk of killing the mother. You don't?

 

Yeah I get it. You want to force women to have babies without being responsible for it.

If the state is just gonna raise them poorly that most of them end up in prison, then they don't deserve to force women to have kids.
Less taxes spent on prison and more on things that actually help the communities.

 

Under that definition, forced mask wearing and forced vaccinations are a violation of bodily autonomy, as every person has the right to control what is or isn't done to their own bodies (such as putting a mask on their face or having a vaccination injected into them).

The natural process of childbirth is not the child choosing to use another's body to sustain his/herself. --- It's also funny that you are now recognizing such an unborn child as a living human who is subject to law (rather than as a "clump of cells")

You have now officially destroyed your own position a hundredfold...

 

If the state is just gonna raise them poorly that most of them end up in prison, then they don't deserve to force women to have kids.
Less taxes spent on prison and more on things that actually help the communities.[/QUOTE]

Liberals cannot help the people they pander to, as Chicago proves.

 

That's exactly what both this and their reactions to states' ballot security laws has been: raw hysteria.

 

That is false. Nowhere in the US does that happen. Even undocumented immigrants receive assistance. I still strongly oppose government interference in ones right to bodily autonomy.

 

Okay. We have now determined, as fact, that the "not baby" is of the 'human' species. Now, I would like to be clear that 'human' species means "of the homo sapien sapien species". Do you agree? --- This solidifies, as fact, that the "not baby" is a human (IOW, a homo sapien sapien).

If you are good with this, then we will move on to the next matter, which is defining the word 'living'. How do you propose defining the word 'living' with regard to the human species, as defined above?

 

There are, of course, other options. Many women have extended families, friends, churches, or communities to turn to for help. We've also got a slew of federal aid programs designed to support single mothers in exactly that situation. There's also adoption. Or OnlyFans.

 

And neither can conservatives.

 

Hey, Abortion cut down the black crime rate a hell of a lot. The Democrats would kill their kids and I have no role in it.

 

Vaccinations yes, but not masks. A covering doesn't go into your body. Shoes, shirt, mask. All the same.

I agree that forced vaccination would violate bodily autonomy, as it is a substance injected into your body. It "becomes" you, for a period of time, anyway. You can take a mask off.

There are ethical questions at play here. The legal questions on abortion were settled by Roe, which ruled that the state could not intervene in the first two trimesters of a pregnancy, and I believe forced vaccination has been illegal for some time. Ugly subject, worldwide, not just here.

Ethically though, does the state have a duty to a child whose parents are refusing life saving treatment? What rights does the child have that the parents cannot override? Any? What happens when a religious belief, protected by the 1st Amendment, conflicts with science? Abortion is also a debate between secular government and religious government. Science and philosophy are aware of their ignorance of "when life begins." Religion is the infallible word of God, whose adherents present a mighty opponent, but myth never wins in the end. Our wise secular Court took this ignorance into consideration, and offered the only rational observation:

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. 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 judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

Has anything changed since 1973? Has the judiciary received some special knowledge no one else is aware of?

Ethically, one can oppose abortion, and I respect that. As I've stated before, I'm pro-choice but I recognize the difference between an embryo and a third trimester fetus. I believe most rational people do. The Court got it right in '73, legally. Before the fetus becomes viable outside the womb, it is part of the woman's body, and not the interest of the state. So while you are free to hold your own ethics, you aren't free to impose them on women.

The question is when life begins. No one knows. That it begins at conception is a religious belief, and this is a secular vs religious argument.

Here's a factoid.

Q. When does life begin?

A. It began 4.28 billion years ago and continues to this day.

 

Sure they could. If Republicans wanted less liberals, they'd mandate abortions instead of fighting to stop them.

 

I wouldn't call TX 3rd world, not even the least bit. I dislike this law, but I don' think it applies to all of TX.

 

Well, by state law, the state law does apply to the entire state. Duh.

But hey, Texas is indeed a 3rd world country. I highly recommend against moving here. In fact, I wish we could eject the 2-3 million Californians that have moved here over the past 15 years. They apparently don't have the morals to stay and pay for the policies they supported. Cowards.

 

I mean conservatives also can't help the people they pander to.

 

No politician of any party can.

 

Our of luck for what, the father is still responsible for financial support and we have courts to enforce it and I am all for enhancing that enforcement. And the mother's life doesn't end. She can certainly enter into another relationship. She can also put the child up for adoption to one of the MANY childless couples desperate to have a child in their lives.

What does that warrant killing the baby it's not the baby's fault, so it's the baby that is out of luck?

 

That was the point and it was silly of you to single out liberals and chicago.

 

The Texas law prohibits state officials from enforcing any rules. Only civil lawsuits are allowed. There is no jail time.

https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB8/id/2395961

 

Well, when you initially posted, it was in a partisan manner. Now that you've admitted that it isn't a partisan comment, we can disregard it as wholly irrelevant. Thanks.

 

I wasn't being partisan. I said Texas government and the state. Not conservatives and republicans.