(May 21, 2021 11:44 AM)luv. Wrote:  Because laws are passed by states and not pro-abortionists

What were you trying to prove lmfao

(May 21, 2021 05:35 PM)maryous Wrote:  So the states are saying the fetus is a living thing yet a not living thing ?
Would pro-abortionists agree it's not a double murder ?
What if the mother wanted the baby, would that make it a double murder and if so is the decision to want the baby makes it a living thing ?

(May 19, 2021 10:24 PM)triple6 Wrote:  fugg yes let these children stand a chance. Killing an almost completely developed fetus/infant is absolutely horrible and this should have never been legal to begin with.

(May 24, 2021 04:14 PM)The Pact Wrote:  I looked into this and most states in the USA have not been allowing abortion on an "almost completely developed fetus" despite a lot of fake propaganda implying that to stir people up and get votes. From what I read most states have not been allowing abortion in the third trimester unless it's to save the mother's life. In much of Europe it's only allowed in the first trimester. In other first world countries it's often not allowed in the third trimester. 

From what I could ascertain the propaganda about "OMG 'liberals' are killing third trimester babies that are almost ready to be born."  appears to be making a meal out of the very tiny number of cases where doctors took action to save the mother's life.

(May 24, 2021 04:16 PM)Grey Wrote:  Unconstitutional bill that will get struck down by SCOTUS. Greg Abbott is a clown.

(May 24, 2021 04:25 PM)triple6 Wrote:  Its not unconstitutional if it was passed through congress and voted on.

(May 20, 2021 08:58 AM)XMR Wrote:  If one needs to get an abortion they have no reason to wait such a long time. Additionally, there are alternatives that don't involve murdering an unborn child.

OT: Good on Texas. Realistically speaking, there is no valid reason to abort a child past the first trimester (with some possible but very rare exceptions that I won't get into here). I am not a lawyer, but I believe there is language in the bill such that they're not actually enforcing the law themselves, but anyone involved (including the mother, doctors, etc.) can have legal action filed against them, perhaps by the father? Nothing happens to the mother or doctors unless someone files a suit against them, so by that technicality they aren't actually enforcing this law with anyone and I guess that means they aren't making it "illegal" in the sense that most people think of it.

(May 20, 2021 09:14 AM)XMR Wrote:  If you're sleeping around to that kind of level then you should be using protection. If you're doing it enough (with protection) that you get pregnant without knowing it (eg. protection fails), then pregnancy isn't your only problem. On top of all this, if you can't deal with the potential consequences of having sex (eg. getting pregnant), then you shouldn't be having sex.
If you can't accept these as potential risks that you may have to go through and it's something you really don't want, then you shouldn't be having sex to begin with.

(May 24, 2021 04:29 PM)Grey Wrote:  It wasn't passed through congress. It's a state bill. But even if it was passed through Congress and voted on, it can still be unconstitutional.

SCOTUS is what stops unconstitutional bills once they've been enacted, not before. Nothing is stopping Congress from passing a outright firearm confiscation bill, but that is unconstitutional and would be stopped by SCOTUS after it passed.

(May 24, 2021 04:25 PM)triple6 Wrote:  Most states dont allow 3rd trimester Abortions correct, but this one only allows for the first trimester. Anything else is 100% not allowed

---

(May 24, 2021 04:36 PM)triple6 Wrote:  That’s my fault. I say Congress as a common term outside of this conversation but you are correct: I referred to the wrong one.

I can agree that there are a couple of things on this Bill that I straight up do not agree with, but its not unconstitutional. I do not see the need to have an abortion after the first trimester. Period. Women will also be followed up with an investigation after a miscarriage. This should have already been a thing as well.

(May 24, 2021 04:29 PM)Grey Wrote:  It wasn't passed through congress. It's a state bill. But even if it was passed through Congress and voted on, it can still be unconstitutional.

SCOTUS is what stops unconstitutional bills once they've been enacted, not before. Nothing is stopping Congress from passing a outright firearm confiscation bill, but that is unconstitutional and would be stopped by SCOTUS after it passed.

(May 24, 2021 04:36 PM)triple6 Wrote:  Women will also be followed up with an investigation after a miscarriage. This should have already been a thing as well.

(May 24, 2021 04:35 PM)The Pact Wrote:  How does not knowing you're pregnant until the 8th week mean you are sleeping around? That makes no sense. I would presume a happily married woman might  be just as likely to not realise she was pregnant until the 8th week  as someone sleeping around?

(May 24, 2021 04:35 PM)The Pact Wrote:  So much woman blaming in this paragraph and lets pretend that men don't constantly badger women for sex when they're saying no and blame it all on how the woman must be sleeping around. This makes it look like more of a woman hating thing than a love of fetuses.

(May 24, 2021 04:35 PM)The Pact Wrote:  Also if a woman is on the pill and she gets any stomach bug or other reason for having diarrhea or vomiting the pill does not work it can get flushed out boom surprise baby.
The thing is most people  especially young  women don't even know this fact.

(May 24, 2021 04:35 PM)The Pact Wrote:  All that being said I certainly have mixed feelings about abortion I don't know that "pro abortionists" are even a thing though.... it's more a question of "is it productive to criminalise doctors who perform abortions and women who seek them."

(May 24, 2021 04:35 PM)The Pact Wrote:  I do feel there is less need for abortions now that we live in an era where woman are not so demonized and don't have their name and lives completely ruined by being unwed mothers etc... But then again society does treat  poor single  mothers like the bottom of the barrel without blaming the men who ran off much.

(May 24, 2021 04:33 PM)Utility Wrote:  There's perfectly understandable situations in which this is explainable.
Abusive relationships is one.  How do you know the women in the relationship is forced to keep the child and didn't have the freedom to make the choice herself
until then?

(May 24, 2021 04:33 PM)Utility Wrote:  There's plenty of reasons why this would happen, and to brandish EVERYONE as a criminal and a bad human for doing it is pretty ignorant.  All this is doing is basically labeling the bottom percentage of child bearing women who have no intention of keeping the child but by endeavors outside of their own control or maybe their own, as criminals. It's giving these women absolutely NO avenue and NO hope for their own choices or freedom.  They either accept their fate, do the abortion themselves or go through extenuating circumstances to get the procedure done if not readily available to them already and not be labeled as a criminal.

(May 24, 2021 04:33 PM)Utility Wrote:  I mean sure outside looking in everyone has the choice to do what they please, but this is a pipe dream for some women in slave like relationships too afraid and too weak to do anything about it.

(May 20, 2021 01:19 PM)Prepper Wrote:  So a serious question for the anti-life/pro-abortion/choice people.

Since you support abortion and not allowing the father to have a say in his own child being killed do you support men being able to opt out of fatherhood and opt out of child support at any point without the mothers say?.