Texas man files legal action to probe ex-partner’s out-of-state abortion

Tell you what - you tell me how abortion can be banned WITHOUT the maternal mortality rate rising and I will listen. Not one but FOUR South American Countries have moved toward lessening abortion restrictions

https://www.as-coa.org/articles/explainer-abortion-rights-latin-america

Why? Because of the maternal mortality

 

But there isn't currently any push to make it illegal for someone to go to another state to smoke it that has made it legal.

 

Marriage has nothing to do with the child.

 

The very fact you take precautions means you are not consenting.



More common than you think

 

True. But it has to do with the resiliency of the relationship. A lower percentage of married couples abort for convenience. Singles trade guilt for a shot at a better, albeit married life down the road.

 

Better education would be a great start. A better medical program would be another. Along with better support.

Most maternal deaths happen due to a lack of available resources and education.

And just so you know, I support UHC.

 

Wrong, I am consenting because I knew the possibility existed.

 

It has been an amazing experiment in the last 4 years watching the “Conservative Party” twist and contort themselves to support anything Trump says, no

Religious zealots crack me up...they claim that "gods kingdom in heaven" is "the glory", so why are they so worried that these "lives" they claim are being taken, aren't going to the "better place" they claim in "gods kingdom"?

I mean, isnt "gods kingdom" what you all live your lives so "godly" for ? Oh wait, you dont live your lives by the bible, you just claim god when you cant use reality and facts to support your opinion.....

 

Look, my wife had 2 ectopic pregnancies. Under republicans draconian laws, she would have died.

Those of you on the right. please stop telling me your pro-life. Your anti-women.

Personally I think congress should pass a law on men, that if you have sex with a woman, and that women gets pregnant, YOU have to pay for the birth, then you have to pay to house and feed her and the baby for the rest of your life, no matter if your married or not. And even better, if you have more than 1 baby, with more than one woman, you have to get a vasectomy. The government then gets to decide what you have to do with YOUR body

 

It has been an amazing experiment in the last 4 years watching the “Conservative Party” twist and contort themselves to support anything Trump says, no matter how ridiculous.

Lets just be 100% transparent and clear when we talk about the current iteration of the Republican Party. They are not conservative, they dont care about principals, they twist and contort everything to support a man, not a party, not an ideology, a MAN.

They claim the Montra of “conservative” yet they spent 1/3 of our entire national debt in just 4 years under Trump

They claim to be the party of the working man, while removing any an all protections from that man in the workplace

They claim to be patriots, yet they tried to overthrow free and fair elections

They claim to be the party of freedom, unless you your a woman, then they get to legislate your body. But they refuse to even consider forcing a man to get a vasectomy if that man impregnates a woman and doesn't marry her.

 

Even when there's a 99% chance they were not responsible?

This seems to be the same as the rape argument. The argument that there's a 1% chance she might have been raped, so that means we automatically have to allow all abortion.

 

Which sounds very off-topic in this thread, since Trump personally has never really taken a hard position against abortion.
(Or definitely not anything that could be considered "extremist" by Abortion supporters. Unless current day Abortion supporters are so extremist that they consider 15 weeks "extremist" if it hinders the woman's ability to get elective abortions that late into the pregnancy)

 

As I've said multiple times already, I'm not religious. So ask your question of someone else.

 

False. Only extremists do not support aborting if the mothers life is in danger. The vast majority of pro-life folks have no problem with an abortion if the mothers life is in danger.

How about you stop telling people what they believe/don't believe? You do not speak for anyone but yourself.

Bad equivalence. No one is telling a woman what to do with her body. They're just telling her that she can't kill another human.

 

\
But that is your argument with this thread now, and that is what the guy in TX is trying to so.

 

United Health Care?

That is not even legal. You cannot arrest a person in your state for committing a "crime" in another state just because it was a crime in yours. One has to charge and extradite. It just won't fly.
Arguing political sound bites is a fool's errand.

 

Universal Health Care.

 

It's a little more complicated than that.

We've had this discussion in the Abortion section of this forum.

Apparently the issue involves too much complicated legality for most people to want to bother reading or thinking about, at least judging from the lack of comments I saw, and the few people who did leave comments just totally deflecting from the topic.

Usually the extradition operates almost automatically, but probably not in this case.
If anyone is curious about various legal complexities that can result, they can do a search in this forum using the tag "extradition".

Something tells me though that those on the Left have big double standards when it comes to how they think state extradition should work going after Trump versus for a woman who got an abortion in another state.

 

BS. Trump and the rest of the party are now the dog that caught the car.

Trump appointed 4 SC justices because he knew they would overturn Roe

 

Apologies, that wasnt directed at you personally

 

Yes they did. They are now (re: Arizona) walking them back because they are finding that its political suicide.

Simple question: Do you support states that make it illegal for their citizens to travel to get an abortion where they are legal ?

You can tell what they “believe” by what they support

OK, by the standard set, we cant kill a glob of goo that could at some point possibly become a human…right ?

So when a man masturbates he is killing millions of potential babies….right?

 

Hmm. Well did it ever occur to you that maybe Roe was not actually based on the Constitution? I mean it wasn't a good decision if we're looking just in terms of how it was based on the Constitution. (I know, something most all of those on the Left have trouble understanding: principles. A reason for making a decision even if you don't necessarily believe that decision will result in the best outcome that you want to see)

Seems Trump's real sin was appointing people who support a stricter reading of the Constitution and don't give into BS.

By the way, Trump desperately tried to make a deal with those on the other side of the aisle, any deal. I'm sure abortion could have easily been on the table, an issue Trump personally didn't care about so much. But, as you know, the other side refused to allow Trump to make the slightest inroads, and stubbornly denied him any gain.

Pro-choicers had been saying for decades that Roe was based on a house of cards and that its supposed Constitutional justification in the opinion didn't really make any true sense.
It didn't take a radical Pro-lifer to knock it down. Just people who were being honest.

Many people on the other side, however, seem completely unable (or unwilling?) to distinguish between if something sounds good versus whether it actually makes logical sense. I see this all the time on this forum where one or two people will click 'like' to a post that sort of sounds like an emotionally compelling argument, but doesn't actually make any real logical sense. I suspect these people aren't just totally stupid, but rather want it to be true, have a philosophical life mentality that thinks anything can be true if they want it to be and they can get others to recognize it as "true".

 

I think he may be a front for the anti choice contingent.

 

Mate, if you are going to use the word 'principles' in the same post as you type the word Humpty**** you have given yourself a mortal wound from the get go.

 

Several years ago, there was a case about a convicted rapist who, when he got out of prison (after a very short sentence), hired a lawyer and sued his victim for joint custody. The really disgusting part is that the judge ruled in his favor.

Can any man imagine, even for an instant, what her life must be like? Because she chose not to abort, she now has to interact with her rapist on a regular basis. That's just wrong.