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

Oh but they were raped? You would think they be intelligent enough to be somewhat curious and take the proper action after insemination..

 

I'm solidly pro-choice, but I never pass up an opportunity to paraphrase Doug Stanhope (who is also solidly pro-choice): allowing an exception for rape is just saying it's okay to kill you if your dad's an *******.

Anyway, RIP the bodily autonomy for Texan women. I hope they stand and fight and make the state blue instead of moving out, but I respect their choice one way or the other.

 

Ahhh coattails, ya I forgot..

 

You did reply to me

 

Actually, if that's all you have gotten from my responses is just quoting "law" it's obvious that you know you don't have a counter argument worth anything. I have discussed the definition of a human, the semantics of the word kill, the differences is "living organisms" and proven you wrong on all of those but, hey, if you think all I want to talk about is the "law" then please, stay in the shallow area.

 

I am delighted that SCOTUS didn't stick its nose where it doesn't belong. But, as a constitutional conservative from Texas and a big fan of Gov. Abbott, I think the new Texas law is too stringent and extreme.

 

Nope, nice spin though, not really, I'm being kind! It was the worse!

 

Texas leading the way with reasonable policy. Way to go!

 

Ha. Convenience. So you'd rather people who don't want a child raise a child on tax payer dollars? I guess finally the good abortion hating folks of Texas will get to pay to raise every unwanted child in their state. I won't pay a dime for them. In fact, I think it makes total sense for people who want to force people to have children they don't want to pay for those children. You clearly want them. So open up your wallet as wide as your mouth.

 

Guess it depends on where you are. In some places that's the law. Others are trying to make it a law to have it BEFORE the abortion.

 

you are so squawked at me how you didn't understand that I was using common parlance versus legal parlance but I guess you dropped it that completely and do not want to talk about it at a humiliation if that's the case I can respect it.

a counter argument to what the law is which I wasn't even discussing? No I don't have a counter argument to what the law is that doesn't even make sense why would you think anyone would?
[QUOTE[
I have discussed the definition of a human, the semantics of the word kill, the differences is "living organisms" and proven you wrong on all of those but, hey, if you think all I want to talk about is the "law" then please, stay in the shallow area.[/QUOTE] well actually you haven't proven me wrong at all I was correct about the word kill I never said to all living organisms were not different. I'm not interested in discussing the legal definition of human if they're even is such a thing.

But I guess if you have to believe this alternate reality you live in then be my guest I wish you happiness.

 

No, it's accurate. It's 95% effective within 24 hours and less effective after that. If Texas' plan for rape victims is to offer them an emergency contraceptive, they are offering a 5% chance of becoming pregnant with the rapist's baby.

 

Texas leading the way with solutions looking for a problem

 

That is the protection of property. That heart beat is not hers, it’s another human.

“Until the fetus is able to live on its own (about 21 weeks)”
is such a weak argument. Technically the baby after a full term birth still can’t live on its own. It still need nourishment and warmth from the mother. They still by all means can not live on their own. So you’re arguing that even this stage would suffice as a parasite. And the term fetus is also disingenuous. That term still holds contents that are clearly a beating heart and movement of its own.

 

Before you are saddled with the life long regret of killing your baby?

How evil.

 

Oh no not at all. Just like allegedly wearing masks and getting vaccines, abortion should be a legal health choice between a person and their doctor. Right? So no, it's not just about rape, it's just that the fact that men would allow a victim to possibly carry a rapists baby is the most repugnant form of self aggrandizement of one's morals in the whole argument.

 

Nope, that makes no sense.

 

You're incorrect. A baby and LIVE on it's own. It requires social support to survive. That can be provided by anyone.

But until 21 weeks it's PHYSICALLY dependent on another human being. Put it this way, would you be OK if we found a 100% cure for cancer and all it required is another human being to be physically joined to you? For 21 weeks? And we passed a law requiring it? You'd be OK with that?

 

What's the problem being solved here? Don't say abortion is murder, that's incorrect, so no problem to solve there.

 

So they did not have sex? Random Texans magically "forced" children on them?

 

Wow....you are really on a roll today. It's all downhill but a roll nonetheless.

 

I'm not really interested in the argument about whether it should be legal or not. The law is what it is.

It's not about rape at all. That's emotional pleading.

 

Never was a baby.

 

I am pro-life and while I believe States should be able to make their own laws, I think the approach is ineffective in reducing abortions. The only effective way to reduce them is to reduce unplanned pregnancies in the first place, which can be done by making contraceptives more easily available and thru education.

 

You can say that if it makes you feel better about advocating for their genocide. Dehumanizing is often a component of that.

But it is what it is. The fact that you bark about it and language police indicates that thinking of it that way gives you pause about killing it.