Sign in to follow this  
Larry

CNN: Supreme Court strikes down Texas abortion access law

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, Larry said:

You think people shouldn't insert themselves into something which you think should be between a woman and her doctor. (FWIW, I agree with you. Just not because I think there's some rule of nature that nobody's opinions count unless I approve of them.)

 

But society inserts itself into lots of decisions. Society thinks they can tell my doctor that he can't help me commit suicide. They can tell my doctor that he can't give me marijuana. They think that my gambling isn't just between me and my bookie and that prostitution isn't just between a john and a hooker. 
 

Every single law restricts people's choices. That's what they do. 
 

And all of them are written by society as a whole. 

Is anyone trying to pass a law that could force you into a medical procedure that could possibly kill you for the sake of a clump of cells surviving 4 more weeks? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Larry the problem with society as a whole making the rules is that society as a whole doesnt always agree on everything.  At some point you have to make a rule and tell the other side to deal with it, this is in best interests for everyone in the long run whether they like it like or not. 

 

That's how Civil Rights Act was passed and signed, the country as a whole wasnt in agreement on that, but if we waited for that it never would've happened.  This is important because its 2019 and I promise you the entire country still isnt on the same page with the matters addressed in that law.

 

Our government is designed to force balance between majority opinions and minority opinions.  This is to account for there will always be majority or minority opinions no matter which one is best for the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someday (if I’m lucky) I hope to find myself a lady that looks at me like some of the mens look at their opinion. Sheesh. Social media is partially to blame though. Nobody having a face to face conversation with a woman would turn forced ectopic pregnancy (WTF did I just say?!) into a social psychology debate. 

Edited by Berggy9598
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, twa said:

the only one forcing a ectopic pregnancy is some of ya'lls imaginations

 

True, the GOP bill isn't forcing ectopic pregnancy.  They're just turning it into a life-threatening condition.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Larry said:

 

True, the GOP bill isn't forcing ectopic pregnancy.  They're just turning it into a life-threatening condition.  

 

 

If you close one eye and stand on your head long enough maybe. 🤓

 

if transplanting the fetus into the uterus ever becomes a safe medically approved procedure ya might even have a point....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, twa said:

If you close one eye and stand on your head long enough maybe. 🤓

 

Or if you read the law.  You know, the part that's been posted in this thread.  

 

2 minutes ago, twa said:

if transplanting the fetus into the uterus ever becomes a safe medically approved procedure ya might even have a point....

 

Got a point now.  Made it.  Clearly.  

 

If it ever becomes non-fictional, then maybe at least one of the points you've tried to make won't be dishonest.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Or if you read the law.  You know, the part that's been posted in this thread.  

 

 

 

 

 

I both read it and understood it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, twa said:

 

I both read it and understood it.

 

Excellent. So you're aware that the portion quoted above, 

 

Quote

 

Sec. 2904.35. A physician who does all of the following is
 not subject to criminal prosecution, damages in any civil
 action, or professional disciplinary action, for a violation of
 this chapter:


 (A) Using reasonable medical judgment, believes it is
 highly probable that the pregnant woman will die from a certain
 fatal condition before her unborn child is viable;


 (B) Performs a surgery, before the unborn child is viable,
 for the sole purpose of treating the pregnant woman's fatal
condition;


 (C) Takes all possible steps to preserve the life of the
 unborn child, while preserving the life of the woman. Such steps
 include, if applicable, attempting to reimplant an ectopic
 pregnancy into the woman's uterus

 

 

states that a physician, treating a patient with an ectopic pregnancy, is not permitted to end such pregnancy until it becomes "highly probable that the pregnant woman will die". (And that's only one of the conditions he has to meet, to avoid being prosecuted for murder.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

once the diagnosis is confirmed it is highly probable the patient will die unless nature, meds or surgery terminate the pregnancy.

 

are you simply arguing timeline is impacted by the bill?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's more that they're trying to include a medically necessary D&C in a bill that bans "all things a woman may elect to do with her female parts".

It's just plain stupid. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, skinsmarydu said:

It's more that they're trying to include a medically necessary D&C in a bill that bans "all things a woman may elect to do with her female parts".

It's just plain stupid. 

 

the bill doesn't ban any medical procedure necessary to save a life, it certainly bans ending human life w/o cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for many years i have realized that anyone who actually uses the term "pro-life" in the advocacy form is of fundamentally corrupt cognition, full of magical/nonsensical/arbitrary/hyper-hypocritical thinking, and it will show up in any number of matters...fuzzy brain stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, twa said:

The same for pro-choice , the labels are stupid

 

no it's not the same at all, either in the main point i was making, or just per use of the term...but i don't think pro-choice is all that much a winner, either

 

 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, twa said:

The same for pro-choice , the labels are stupid

 

1 hour ago, Jumbo said:

 

but i don't think pro-choice is all that much a winner, either

 

 

"Small government" fits.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, twa said:

labels are stupid

"Conservative" and "liberal"... "capitalist" and "socialist"... None of it means what it's supposed to mean anymore. Those terms get thrown around now like "bloods" and "crips". It's just the group that people associate themselves with and are loyal to because of course, once you attach a label to yourself it becomes part of your identity and makes you easier to manipulate.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

 

"Small government" fits.  

 

 

well, to twa's comment (which isn't absent of all merit) , a number of users of "pro-life" will slam the pro-choice label in retaliation when they're criticized for the "pro-life" term by going with something akin to  "but what choice are you giving the baby?" followed by how libs are "all about freedom of choice except for the most vital choice concerning the most innocent and helpless among us" (that's me simulating)

 

i do also think pro-choice is a poor choice, though not "the same", as i indicated, and it doesn't reflect the common problematic cognitive patterning i referenced, but i lack the interest to get into a really big exposition on the matter, for which i'm sure at least a few folk are more than grateful

 

 

7 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

"Conservative" and "liberal"... "capitalist" and "socialist"... None of it means what it's supposed to mean anymore. Those terms get thrown around now like "bloods" and "crips". It's just the group that people associate themselves with and are loyal to because of course, once you attach a label to yourself it becomes part of your identity and makes you easier to manipulate.

 

 

that's why i generally try to stick with "dumbass" here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dunno why they want to revisit those.  (Other than to score points with their base.  Which I suppose is a possible motive.)  They've effectively gutted it already.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i wish all the magical-thinking pro lifers just weren't

 

especially the ones with dicks

 

if you personally can't get pregnant when you screw then sit down and keep your mouth shut, dumbass

 

 

(i dun ben radicalized)

 

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hawley is going to run for President and doesn't want this on his record in a general election. Yet the GOP isn't going to nominate someone who doesn't want to end Roe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.