Abortion-Keep Legal, Yes or No?

HughFreakingDillon

ok, walk me through this...texas is a STATE. why is everyone screaming the sky is falling regarding roe v wade, a FEDERAL law? are you thinking that if this gets challenged to the supreme court, that's when they'll overturn it? do you really think that will happen? i mean, even the new conservative judges have gone on record saying "it's not our job to fuck with precedence". obviously paraphrasing. 

HughFreakingDillon

biden admin vows to protect roe v wade. 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-vows-protect-roe-v-wade-after-texas-abortion-law-takes-effect-2021-09-01/

good. stack the fuck out of the court. fuck em. 

mickeyrat

HughFreakingDillon said:

ok, walk me through this...texas is a STATE. why is everyone screaming the sky is falling regarding roe v wade, a FEDERAL law? are you thinking that if this gets challenged to the supreme court, that's when they'll overturn it? do you really think that will happen? i mean, even the new conservative judges have gone on record saying "it's not our job to fuck with precedence". obviously paraphrasing. 

scotus to refused to stay the Talib excuse me Texas law

Johnny Abruzzo

Roe v Wade, now overturned, is meant to overturn state laws attacking women's rights, such as the one passed by the Texas Taliban.

gimmesometruth27

HughFreakingDillon said:

ok, walk me through this...texas is a STATE. why is everyone screaming the sky is falling regarding roe v wade, a FEDERAL law? are you thinking that if this gets challenged to the supreme court, that's when they'll overturn it? do you really think that will happen? i mean, even the new conservative judges have gone on record saying "it's not our job to fuck with precedence". obviously paraphrasing. 

that law was appealed to the supreme court, which is supposed to either issue a stay before the law goes into effect and take up the law for consideration and strike it down, or do nothing and let the new texas law go into effect. they chose to do nothing, so basically texas has a new law that outlaws abortion past the 6 week mark, which is earlier than many women know that they are pregnant.

also in theory allows a man to get his g/f pregnant, get the abortion, and then he can turn the girl in and collect $10,000 for having an abortion. yes, the law allows you to rat and turn people in that you know had an abortion and you can collect $10,000.

HughFreakingDillon

gimmesometruth27 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ok, walk me through this...texas is a STATE. why is everyone screaming the sky is falling regarding roe v wade, a FEDERAL law? are you thinking that if this gets challenged to the supreme court, that's when they'll overturn it? do you really think that will happen? i mean, even the new conservative judges have gone on record saying "it's not our job to fuck with precedence". obviously paraphrasing. 

that law was appealed to the supreme court, which is supposed to either issue a stay before the law goes into effect and take up the law for consideration and strike it down, or do nothing and let the new texas law go into effect. they chose to do nothing, so basically texas has a new law that outlaws abortion past the 6 week mark, which is earlier than many women know that they are pregnant.

also in theory allows a man to get his g/f pregnant, get the abortion, and then he can turn the girl in and collect $10,000 for having an abortion. yes, the law allows you to rat and turn people in that you know had an abortion and you can collect $10,000.

yes, I understand all that, but roe is not "overturned". it's still federal law. I mean, sure, it's fucking difficult to get an abortion in texas now, and possibly soon in mississippi, but everywhere else is still fine. 

time the south secedes. 

CM189191

HughFreakingDillon said:

ok, walk me through this...texas is a STATE. why is everyone screaming the sky is falling regarding roe v wade, a FEDERAL law? are you thinking that if this gets challenged to the supreme court, that's when they'll overturn it? do you really think that will happen? i mean, even the new conservative judges have gone on record saying "it's not our job to fuck with precedence". obviously paraphrasing. 

Because next time GQP is in charge they will use the Texas law as a template for Federal law

also, roe v wade is not a law, it's a court case

hedonist

gimmesometruth27 said:

well, since roe vs wade is going to be gone, i wonder if pychosinlove is finally happy?

pychoslinove is an old member that got banned like 10 or 12 years ago. very, veeeeerrry pro life.

he loved his smashmouth. and the unborn "babbies".

I think I remember “babbies”

cblock4life

I could be wrong but I believe abortion falls under the 14th amendment under privacy.  

So it’s actually a constitutional right. 

HughFreakingDillon

CM189191 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ok, walk me through this...texas is a STATE. why is everyone screaming the sky is falling regarding roe v wade, a FEDERAL law? are you thinking that if this gets challenged to the supreme court, that's when they'll overturn it? do you really think that will happen? i mean, even the new conservative judges have gone on record saying "it's not our job to fuck with precedence". obviously paraphrasing. 

Because next time GQP is in charge they will use the Texas law as a template for Federal law

also, roe v wade is not a law, it's a court case

a decision by the supreme court like this effectively negates any laws that contradict that decision, effectively making it law in purpose, but not technically. 

mrussel1

CM189191 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ok, walk me through this...texas is a STATE. why is everyone screaming the sky is falling regarding roe v wade, a FEDERAL law? are you thinking that if this gets challenged to the supreme court, that's when they'll overturn it? do you really think that will happen? i mean, even the new conservative judges have gone on record saying "it's not our job to fuck with precedence". obviously paraphrasing. 

Because next time GQP is in charge they will use the Texas law as a template for Federal law

also, roe v wade is not a law, it's a court case

There's no chance for a federal law. If R v W is overturned,  limited,  etc, it means that each state will have its own abortion laws. 

Merkin Baller

nvm 

Bentleyspop

Biden launches federal effort to respond to Texas law as he faces pressure to protect abortion, but has few options https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/02/politics/biden-abortion/index.html

drakeheuer14

I know I am one of the few around here to agree with heavy abortion restrictions, so I am not really a fan of posting here, so instead I come with a question. Apologies if it’s ignorant. The topic of pregnancies from rape is always one of the first things around abortion restrictions that people bring up. Rape is horrific and it’s one of the only things that makes me question my stance on this topic. 

In the case of a rape though, wouldn’t pregnancy be something the victim is seriously worried about to begin with after it happens? Why aren’t they consistently taking pregnancy tests each week or so after it happens? Then the 6 week limit doesn’t seem so crazy or as surprising of a timeline to accept since tests can detect as early as 10 days after conception, correct? 

The trauma? Finances? Age of victims perhaps?

HughFreakingDillon

drakeheuer14 said:

I know I am one of the few around here to agree with heavy abortion restrictions, so I am not really a fan of posting here, so instead I come with a question. Apologies if it’s ignorant. The topic of pregnancies from rape is always one of the first things around abortion restrictions that people bring up. Rape is horrific and it’s one of the only things that makes me question my stance on this topic. 

In the case of a rape though, wouldn’t pregnancy be something the victim is seriously worried about to begin with after it happens? Why aren’t they consistently taking pregnancy tests each week or so after it happens? Then the 6 week limit doesn’t seem so crazy or as surprising of a timeline to accept since tests can detect as early as 10 days after conception, correct? 

The trauma? Finances? Age of victims perhaps?

probably a multitude of factors, the ones you mentioned, and more. 

the other issue that is problematic is that it's actually potentially dangerous to the mother to perform an abortion on a fetus that young (something I just read the other day, I didn't know that before). 

mrussel1

drakeheuer14 said:

I know I am one of the few around here to agree with heavy abortion restrictions, so I am not really a fan of posting here, so instead I come with a question. Apologies if it’s ignorant. The topic of pregnancies from rape is always one of the first things around abortion restrictions that people bring up. Rape is horrific and it’s one of the only things that makes me question my stance on this topic. 

In the case of a rape though, wouldn’t pregnancy be something the victim is seriously worried about to begin with after it happens? Why aren’t they consistently taking pregnancy tests each week or so after it happens? Then the 6 week limit doesn’t seem so crazy or as surprising of a timeline to accept since tests can detect as early as 10 days after conception, correct? 

The trauma? Finances? Age of victims perhaps?

All those things.. but the question is why put that arbitrary six weeks as a deadline?  Clearly this law is intended to eliminate 90% of abortions without technically running afoul of Roe.  6 weeks is one missed period plus two weeks? The stress and trauma from rape,  let alone normal life,  can cause a woman to miss her period. 

HughFreakingDillon

mrussel1 said:

drakeheuer14 said:

I know I am one of the few around here to agree with heavy abortion restrictions, so I am not really a fan of posting here, so instead I come with a question. Apologies if it’s ignorant. The topic of pregnancies from rape is always one of the first things around abortion restrictions that people bring up. Rape is horrific and it’s one of the only things that makes me question my stance on this topic. 

In the case of a rape though, wouldn’t pregnancy be something the victim is seriously worried about to begin with after it happens? Why aren’t they consistently taking pregnancy tests each week or so after it happens? Then the 6 week limit doesn’t seem so crazy or as surprising of a timeline to accept since tests can detect as early as 10 days after conception, correct? 

The trauma? Finances? Age of victims perhaps?

All those things.. but the question is why put that arbitrary six weeks as a deadline?  Clearly this law is intended to eliminate 90% of abortions without technically running afoul of Roe.  6 weeks is one missed period plus two weeks? The stress and trauma from rape,  let alone normal life,  can cause a woman to miss her period. 

and that's even if the woman is regular, which many aren't. 

drakeheuer14

mrussel1 said:

drakeheuer14 said:

I know I am one of the few around here to agree with heavy abortion restrictions, so I am not really a fan of posting here, so instead I come with a question. Apologies if it’s ignorant. The topic of pregnancies from rape is always one of the first things around abortion restrictions that people bring up. Rape is horrific and it’s one of the only things that makes me question my stance on this topic. 

In the case of a rape though, wouldn’t pregnancy be something the victim is seriously worried about to begin with after it happens? Why aren’t they consistently taking pregnancy tests each week or so after it happens? Then the 6 week limit doesn’t seem so crazy or as surprising of a timeline to accept since tests can detect as early as 10 days after conception, correct? 

The trauma? Finances? Age of victims perhaps?

All those things.. but the question is why put that arbitrary six weeks as a deadline?  Clearly this law is intended to eliminate 90% of abortions without technically running afoul of Roe.  6 weeks is one missed period plus two weeks? The stress and trauma from rape,  let alone normal life,  can cause a woman to miss her period. 

I mean there has to be restrictions around abortion of some sort don’t you think? It might be arbitrary, but so are a lot of rules/laws. But then it comes back to when does life begin which is a topic that will never have an agreement. 

cblock4life

mrussel1 said:

drakeheuer14 said:

I know I am one of the few around here to agree with heavy abortion restrictions, so I am not really a fan of posting here, so instead I come with a question. Apologies if it’s ignorant. The topic of pregnancies from rape is always one of the first things around abortion restrictions that people bring up. Rape is horrific and it’s one of the only things that makes me question my stance on this topic. 

In the case of a rape though, wouldn’t pregnancy be something the victim is seriously worried about to begin with after it happens? Why aren’t they consistently taking pregnancy tests each week or so after it happens? Then the 6 week limit doesn’t seem so crazy or as surprising of a timeline to accept since tests can detect as early as 10 days after conception, correct? 

The trauma? Finances? Age of victims perhaps?

All those things.. but the question is why put that arbitrary six weeks as a deadline?  Clearly this law is intended to eliminate 90% of abortions without technically running afoul of Roe.  6 weeks is one missed period plus two weeks? The stress and trauma from rape,  let alone normal life,  can cause a woman to miss her period. 

Plan B, the morning after pill, can be used the next day after unprotected sex…..if you’re raped call the police and go directly to the hospital and ask for plan B or if it was just an accident with your partner then you can get it in a drug store.  I would recommend no girl/woman whose been raped do anything other than call the police and go to the hospital immediately after the act.  Have the hospital give you the pill and have it documented by nurse/physician. 

drakeheuer14

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

drakeheuer14 said:

I know I am one of the few around here to agree with heavy abortion restrictions, so I am not really a fan of posting here, so instead I come with a question. Apologies if it’s ignorant. The topic of pregnancies from rape is always one of the first things around abortion restrictions that people bring up. Rape is horrific and it’s one of the only things that makes me question my stance on this topic. 

In the case of a rape though, wouldn’t pregnancy be something the victim is seriously worried about to begin with after it happens? Why aren’t they consistently taking pregnancy tests each week or so after it happens? Then the 6 week limit doesn’t seem so crazy or as surprising of a timeline to accept since tests can detect as early as 10 days after conception, correct? 

The trauma? Finances? Age of victims perhaps?

All those things.. but the question is why put that arbitrary six weeks as a deadline?  Clearly this law is intended to eliminate 90% of abortions without technically running afoul of Roe.  6 weeks is one missed period plus two weeks? The stress and trauma from rape,  let alone normal life,  can cause a woman to miss her period. 

and that's even if the woman is regular, which many aren't. 

I will never be able to fully understand what they go through, I would just think pregnancy is one of the first things I would worry about after that scenario. But I guess the factors I mentioned answered my own question.