Supreme Court plays coward. Get raped in Texas and u can be forced to have the baby.

[AU9377 4,977]

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/01/supreme-court-texas-abortion-ban-508275

This law is insane in the way that it allows private citizens from across the country to file a civil suit against people in Texas for its violation.

Edited September 1, 2021 by AU9377

[wdefromtx 3,159]

This is just so dumb................ironically its the same people upset about people trying to tell them to get vaccinated or wear a mask claiming "it's my body." When in fact they are trying to govern women's bodies. 

 

Also, did I read that right? That the person getting the abortion may have to pay $10K to the snitch? 

Edited September 1, 2021 by wdefromtx

[AU9377 4,977]

7 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

This is just so dumb................ironically its the same people upset about people trying to tell them to get vaccinated or wear a mask claiming "it's my body." When in fact they are trying to govern women's bodies. 

 

Also, did I read that right? That the person getting the abortion may have to pay $10K to the snitch? 

The law seems to be unclear about the actual woman being liable, but the person that drove her to the clinic could certainly be liable for $10,000 to that snitch.

[CoffeeTiger 5,135]

21 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

This is just so dumb................ironically its the same people upset about people trying to tell them to get vaccinated or wear a mask claiming "it's my body." When in fact they are trying to govern women's bodies. 

 

Also, did I read that right? That the person getting the abortion may have to pay $10K to the snitch? 

Essentially it allows anyone to file a lawsuit against anyone who preformed or helped perform, or aided a person in getting an "illegal" abortion. 

It's primary aim is to scare away abortion providers and doctors, but theoretically, you could try and sue just about anyone involved with the process. 

 

Any abortion provider shown to do an abortion even 1 day past the 6 weeks time frame is to be immediately shut down by the state. 

 

This is basically as close to making abortion completely illegal as you can get. It's blatantly unconstitutional, but we'll have to see if the Supreme Court cares. 

Edit: From 2019, but still just as accurate today except you obviously would need Texas thrown into the mix. 

Edited September 1, 2021 by CoffeeTiger

[wdefromtx 3,159]

2 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Essentially it allows anyone to file a lawsuit against anyone who preformed or helped perform, or aided a person in getting an "illegal" abortion. 

It's primary aim is to scare away abortion providers and doctors, but theoretically, you could try and sue just about anyone involved with the process. 

 

Any abortion provider shown to do an abortion even 1 day past the 6 weeks time frame is to be immediately shut down by the state. 

 

This is basically as close to making abortion completely illegal as you can get. It's blatantly unconstitutional, but we'll have to see if the Supreme Court cares. 

I lean right on many things..........but as a guy, I just defer to the ladies on this one. Anyways, this law went off the rails of the crazy train. 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I'm pretty flexible on certain things politically.  I think sometimes the Democrats have a certain issue more right than the Republicans, sometimes vice versa.

But in this case, to me it's a human rights issue.  An innocent human being has the right not to be killed simply for existing and someone else not wanting them to.  We need to move away from seeing abortion as birth control and toward a culture that welcomes human life.  We need to move away from seeing sexual autonomy as a higher good than the right to not be murdered.

Now, the pragmatist in me would settle for a law that allowed for cases of incest or rape to be exempted.  Not because I think children conceived in such situations are less human, but because I know that these instances are exceedingly rare and we shouldn't be making policy based on outliers and edge cases.  Less than 3% of all abortions occur because of rape, incest and the life of the mother combined.  These are not the situations that should steer all of abortion law.  So if I could stop roughly 97% or more of all abortions from happening, I'd take that deal.

All this said, my big problem with the "pro-life" side of this is how often their cherishing of life ends right here.  They think that opposition to abortion taketh away the sins of the world.  Too many of them act like once they outlaw abortion the job is done and they're all lifey and stuff. But a real culture of life would seek to address the things that tend to make abortion a tempting or attractive option for women - lack of healthcare, financial support, emotional support, the threat of losing one's job or having to drop out of school, and so on.  Some charities fill in some of these gaps, but its very spotty nationwide.  Yet the second anyone suggests law or policy or programs that could help with these things on a more comprehensive level, these same pro-lifers balk, scream "sOcIaLiSm oMzG!", and become Ayn Rand reincarnate...which tells me many of them are more devoted to a particular American political ideology and tribe than they are to being pro-life or biblical in the approach to the matter.

I'm sure aspects of the above will dismay or piss off people on both sides of the debate but that's where I'm at.

[AUGunsmith 666]

Lot of people here don't understand the issues at play here. Scotus has a hard time because of the specifics of the law. The enforcer of the law isnt the state making normal measures of challenging the law unusable. The specific challenges brought to the court couldn't be used to block the law. 

A restraining order or injunction is still expected in the coming days. 

Plus it ignores that the court is already gearing up to take on the Mississippi abortion laws. That is a much bigger issue than this one as it is roe v Wade part 2.

[jj3jordan 2,056]

Just think of all the valuable and precious lives that will be saved.  I bet you won't get fined if you drive a pregnant woman to a hospital and that mother gives her baby up for adoption, instead of killing it.  There's an upside.  The old axiom still true:  Most pro abortion activists have already been born.

[AU9377 4,977]

7 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Just think of all the valuable and precious lives that will be saved.  I bet you won't get fined if you drive a pregnant woman to a hospital and that mother gives her baby up for adoption, instead of killing it.  There's an upside.  The old axiom still true:  Most pro abortion activists have already been born.

So if a woman is 9 weeks pregnant and has a car accident because she is speeding, is she guilty of murder when she has a miscarriage? 

[AUGunsmith 666]

51 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Just think of all the valuable and precious lives that will be saved.  I bet you won't get fined if you drive a pregnant woman to a hospital and that mother gives her baby up for adoption, instead of killing it.  There's an upside.  The old axiom still true:  Most pro abortion activists have already been born.

There are thousands of kids waiting in the us to be adopted already. Why add one more kid into the system for a statistically probabe bad life. What if the kid has major defects? Would you really rather bring a human into the world who barely qualifies as human?

 

 

[jj3jordan 2,056]

8 minutes ago, AUGunsmith said:

There are thousands of kids waiting in the us to be adopted already. Why add one more kid into the system for a statistically probabe bad life. What if the kid has major defects? Would you really rather bring a human into the world who barely qualifies as human?

 

 

That is a question that cannot be answered by me.  Only God should make that call.

[AU9377 4,977]

11 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

<post removed by admin>

Word of the day:  Conundrum (co·nun·drum) - a confusing and difficult problem or question.

I personally believe that every child is a gift. That gift should be nurtured and a parent should be selfless when it comes to their child's needs over their own.  I can't imagine a situation wherein I would make that choice.  However, I am not a woman and the fact that it isn't the choice I would make, does not make it a criminal act for someone else to make that choice.  There is a time at which a fetus is viable.  At that point, I have no problems with restrictions, with the exception being to save the mother's life.  During the first 3 months, laws are nothing more than government intrusion into a woman's body and her health care decisions without justification.

[jj3jordan 2,056]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

Really?

Word of the day:  Conundrum (co·nun·drum) - a confusing and difficult problem or question.

I personally believe that every child is a gift. That gift should be nurtured and a parent should be selfless when it comes to their child's needs over their own.  I can't imagine a situation wherein I would make that choice.  However, I am not a woman and the fact that it isn't the choice I would make, does not make it a criminal act for someone else to make that choice.  There is a time at which a fetus is viable.  At that point, I have no problems with restrictions, with the exception being to save the mother's life.  During the first 3 months, laws are nothing more than government intrusion into a woman's body and her health care decisions without justification.

Spoken by one already born. You are lucky my friend.  Lots of choices for you just not for the baby.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

12 hours ago, AU9377 said:

So if a woman is 9 weeks pregnant and has a car accident because she is speeding, is she guilty of murder when she has a miscarriage? 

Even the law is clear about differences between premeditated, conscious and purposeful acts and unintended consequences resulting from actions that could be considered dangerous and careless.  And even within the realm of carelessness, there are degrees and in your speeding scenario, unless you were driving erratically or way over the speed limit on purpose, you're unlikely to even get so much as a negligent homicide charge, much less murder.

Look, I get these things are difficult to figure out.  Part of that is a mentality we've unfortunately imbibed over the last 50 years that has arbitrarily magicked the unborn into only being human persons deserving of rights if the mother wants them, or if they travel a few inches down a vagina and get their head out or some similar legal fiction.  Human rights shouldn't be dependent upon "wanted" or "unwanted."  Or the few inches of difference in geography between the uterus and the end of a woman's vagina.  

I firmly believe that if a woman thinks abortion is her only viable choice, society has failed her, and the new TX is law is sorely deficient on that end of things.  If you actually want to save babies, you can't just tackle the problem in a punitive way, attacking only the supply side of the equation.  You have to be willing to look at what drives demand for abortions and the surveys of women who have chosen abortion tell us over and over again that the primary drivers are things like lack of financial support, lack of emotional/family support, lack of healthcare, fear of losing a job or having to drop out of school, childcare costs and availability, etc.  So to really be successful at what you claim is your primary motivation - saving babies - you need, just from a practical standpoint - to address these drivers of abortion demand.  And reality is, you can't just leave it all to charities and non-profits. They aren't ubiquitous enough.  There's a place for changing laws and enacting programs and such at a government level to help with this issues and people have to be willing to get out of their ideological boxes politically on it to achieve a higher goal.  You have to ask yourself, is it more important to cling tightly to libertarian or Republican orthodoxy on government programs and tax policy and such or is saving babies a higher aim that takes precedence?

[wdefromtx 3,159]

The whole abortion issue just drives home the fact that both sides are so hypocritical and way too immersed in their ideological and political beliefs. 
 

On the right we have people screaming “It’s my body, you can’t make me wear a mask or make me take the vaccine.” Or they are the “we oppose government interfering in our personal rights and freedoms.” At the same time wanting to control rights of women regarding abortion. Etc. 

Then on the left we have people screaming about folks that aren’t vaccinated or wearing masks don’t care about people’s lives. But are perfectly ok with killing 1000’s of innocent babies. They want the government to leave this alone, but force vaccines on people. Etc. 

No wonder we don’t get anything done for the greater good anymore. Good grief. 
 

It’s the fact that abortions went from a “last resort” situation to a form of birth control. I’m sorry, but if you screw up and end up pregnant have the baby and put it up for adoption. There are very few situations that really warrants abortion…such as rape, or the health of a mother in the grand scheme of things. 
 

I don’t know a good answer for it. And I don’t think or political system or court system can answer it good either. My only answer is, the person that does it has to deal with the consequences of their decision. They have to carry the guilt for the rest of their lives. And if they don’t have any remorse, then I don’t know what to tell them. Hopefully they will have a sufficient answer at the pearly gates. 

[AUGunsmith 666]

An even better idea, how about we all stop pretending like america works and break this s*** up so that the leftist can go one place, the rightist another and the individualist can finally be left alone. 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

2 minutes ago, AUGunsmith said:

An even better idea, how about we all stop pretending like america works and break this s*** up so that the leftist can go one place, the rightist another and the individualist can finally be left alone. 

Clowns to the left…jokers to the right….

[CoffeeTiger 5,135]

10 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Spoken by one already born. You are lucky my friend.  Lots of choices for you just not for the baby.

 

A Person never asks or chooses to be born either, yet it's a sin and against the law to commit suicide, so nobody has any real choices about their life either way. 

At least an aborted baby gets a straight ride into heaven for all eternity. If they're born it's actually statistically likely that that person will end up going to hell when they eventually die since only 31% of the worlds population identify as Christian. And that's only if you believe every single person who identifies as Christian goes to heaven. If you believe there is more to it than that (depending on your denomination) then the % of saved goes down into the 1-10% of the worlds population.  

[augolf1716 21,219]

1 hour ago, wdefromtx said:

Clowns to the left…jokers to the right….

Stuck in the middle with you

[wdefromtx 3,159]

Just now, augolf1716 said:

Stuck in the middle with you

I knew I could count on you to finish the verse!! 

[augolf1716 21,219]

2 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

I knew I could count on you to finish the verse!! 

Great lyrics in the song

[AUDub 11,155]

This is going to be such a damned mess. 

 

[Didba 5,256]

15 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

That is a question that cannot be answered by me.  Only God should make that call.

Yikes. Sensible policy cannot be made on "God's call", you make me sick.

[AU9377 4,977]

3 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Even the law is clear about differences between premeditated, conscious and purposeful acts and unintended consequences resulting from actions that could be considered dangerous and careless.  And even within the realm of carelessness, there are degrees and in your speeding scenario, unless you were driving erratically or way over the speed limit on purpose, you're unlikely to even get so much as a negligent homicide charge, much less murder.

Look, I get these things are difficult to figure out.  Part of that is a mentality we've unfortunately imbibed over the last 50 years that has arbitrarily magicked the unborn into only being human persons deserving of rights if the mother wants them, or if they travel a few inches down a vagina and get their head out or some similar legal fiction.  Human rights shouldn't be dependent upon "wanted" or "unwanted."  Or the few inches of difference in geography between the uterus and the end of a woman's vagina.  

I firmly believe that if a woman thinks abortion is her only viable choice, society has failed her, and the new TX is law is sorely deficient on that end of things.  If you actually want to save babies, you can't just tackle the problem in a punitive way, attacking only the supply side of the equation.  You have to be willing to look at what drives demand for abortions and the surveys of women who have chosen abortion tell us over and over again that the primary drivers are things like lack of financial support, lack of emotional/family support, lack of healthcare, fear of losing a job or having to drop out of school, childcare costs and availability, etc.  So to really be successful at what you claim is your primary motivation - saving babies - you need, just from a practical standpoint - to address these drivers of abortion demand.  And reality is, you can't just leave it all to charities and non-profits. They aren't ubiquitous enough.  There's a place for changing laws and enacting programs and such at a government level to help with this issues and people have to be willing to get out of their ideological boxes politically on it to achieve a higher goal.  You have to ask yourself, is it more important to cling tightly to libertarian or Republican orthodoxy on government programs and tax policy and such or is saving babies a higher aim that takes precedence?

That comment wasn't in response to the law.  I was responding to the OP's comment specifically.

[AU9377 4,977]

2 hours ago, AUGunsmith said:

An even better idea, how about we all stop pretending like america works and break this s*** up so that the leftist can go one place, the rightist another and the individualist can finally be left alone. 

Do you really think it is possible to only live in a community with people that believe the exact same things that you do?  Would it not be much more sensible to accept that differences exist and learn how to respect different points of view?