Texas - Terrible abortion law doing what Republicans said it wouldn't do

[fantome profane]

Yes he talked about negotiating. But isn't that good? He is just saying he will consider the other sides view and come up with a compromise.

Well I found it strange, but that is not the point. The point is there is a big difference between negotiating about what bans you would sign, and saying any federal law would be unconstitutional. Do you see the contradiction there?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Well I found it strange, but that is not the point. The point is there is a big difference between negotiating about what bans you would sign, and saying any federal law would be unconstitutional. Do you see the contradiction there?

No I don't. The constitution is clear that abortion should be decided by each state. (9th amendment says rights not enumerated in the constitution does not mean the people don't have that right. This has been interpreted many times to be rights left to the states. The roe decision made a right out of thin air. If you want a national right to abortion or national ban you must amend the constitution.

So any state can decide the abortion issue themselves but the federal government cannot unless the constitution is amended. So negotiating or compromising on the issue makes sense at the state level.

 

[fantome profane]

So any state can decide the abortion issue themselves but the federal government cannot unless the constitution is amended. So negotiating or compromising on the issue makes sense at the state level.

But Trump is not running for Governor of a State, or any State office. He is running for President. When he talks about negotiating he is talking about negotiating at the federal level, he was talking about what the federal law should be. He was not talking about anything at the State level.

He was asked if he would sign an abortion ban at the federal level, and his answer was that he would, but he would negotiate for the number of weeks.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

But Trump is not running for Governor of a State, or any State office. He is running for President. When he talks about negotiating he is talking about negotiating at the federal level, he was talking about what the federal law should be. He was not talking about anything at the State level.

He was asked if he would sign an abortion ban at the federal level, and his answer was that he would, but he would negotiate for the number of weeks.

Here are his recent thoughts:

https://www.axios.com/2023/09/17/trump-abortion-federal-state-regulations

"It could be state or it could be federal, I don't frankly care" ~ Trump

 

[fantome profane]

Here are his recent thoughts:

https://www.axios.com/2023/09/17/trump-abortion-federal-state-regulations

"It could be state or it could be federal, I don't frankly care" ~ Trump

So when you said ....

Trump and myself are in agreement that any law on abortion is unconstitutional on the federal level.

It seems you and Trump are not necessarily in agreement.

 

[Honorable_Skeptic]

Personal attacks do nothing to support your position. Nobody mentioned anything about Abrahamic religions. Kindly keep your religious bigotry out of the discussion.

You have it exactly inverted. It is a woman getting an abortion that is trying to exceed the rights of another. The right to life is superior to other human rights. A woman can exercise any right she chooses, including reproductive rights, unless it infringes on the very life of another person. That violates the innate and inviolate rights of another person.

I made no personal attack, I just asked you to stop being so judgemental of how women get pregnant. In every case, a man is involved and in SOME cases, it is not by the woman's choice. And accusing me of religious bigotry is unfounded. I was just stating what is common knowledge.

Human life is NOT absolute and never has been, so you are wrong. If it was, we wouldn't have the death penalty for crimes like murder. And throughout history, a person's legal and social existence was defined as starting at BIRTH, not conception. Indeed, if an embryo or fetus is not even viable yet, there is NO independent life to speak of, so abortion is indeed a right of the already born and LIVING potential mother. Therefore, there really is no room for your delusions in this discussion.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Newsflash: Dictatorship is not Constitutional.

Then our beloved politicians ought not to play with the country's infrastructure.

Both parties do it anyways.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

So when you said ....

It seems you and Trump are not necessarily in agreement.

I guess so. I wanna say he had said before he would not support a nationwide ban. Maybe he changed his mind or I misheard him.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

No, it is not. The situation in the OP is the reason for the exceptions. Mrs. Cox should be able to have the abortion in this instance. I just read that she is leaving the state to get the abortion.

Texas Supreme Court rules against woman who sued for an emergency abortion

Kate Cox will be leaving Texas to get an abortion.

abcnews.go.com

If not an upside (good thing) do you feel that it’s a downside (bad thing)?

Or perhaps

No, it is not. The situation in the OP is the reason for the exceptions. Mrs. Cox should be able to have the abortion in this instance. I just read that she is leaving the state to get the abortion.

Texas Supreme Court rules against woman who sued for an emergency abortion

Kate Cox will be leaving Texas to get an abortion.

abcnews.go.com

Here you say it’s not an upside…. correct?
Yet here you indicate that it is……correct?

In this instance Trump did what he said he would do and appoint conservative judges that would rule on a constitutional basis which is to overturn Roe. So I think it is a good outcome.

Thus, I’m not clear on your position.

I surmise that you are against a right to abortions; can you explain your reasoning on this……i.e. why you feel a woman should not have a right to bodily autonomy?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

If not an upside (good thing) do you feel that it’s a downside (bad thing)?

Or perhaps

Here you say it’s not an upside…. correct?
Yet here you indicate that it is……correct?

Thus, I’m not clear on your position.

I surmise that you are against a right to abortions; can you explain your reasoning on this……i.e. why you feel a woman should not have a right to bodily autonomy?

I think that killing human life is wrong. In an abortion it is a fact that human life is killed. A woman has a right to bodily autonomy but she does not have a right to kill human life.

Most pregnancies are a result of a choice made by the father and mother. One result of sex is pregnancy, if you engage in sex then one of the potential outcomes is pregnancy. That is a choice made by both people.

Many people say that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy but that is like saying consent to eating poison is not consent to dying. Pregnancy is potential consequence of their actions that most men and women know before having sex.

The human life created did not consent to being created and cannot consent to being terminated.

So I am against abortion because it kills innocent human life. But there are instances like Mrs. Cox where abortion should be allowed. From what I read the condition the baby has is terrible and is not going to live to term or very long after birth, like days, and this can negatively affect her ability to have children in the future. In this instance the mother and whoever she wants to be involved in the decision should be respected.

 

[F1fan]

The judge ruled in this specifically contrary to a statutory prohibition. A judge does not have legislative authority.

A judge can rule on the law, and the judge ruled about the exceptions that Texas law allows. But these exceptions are so vague that even judges and doctors don't understand them clearly. The judge made a humane ruling, and the republican AG gave a cruel response. The Texas supreme court backed up the cruelty. Cruelty is the point where it comes to right wing women's healthcare.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'd like to see any videos of him promising that.

"NMás journalist and CBS News contributor Enrique Acevedo asked Trump: "You say they've weaponized the Justice Department, they weaponized the FBI. Would you do the same if you're reelected?"

"Well, he's unleashed something that everybody, we've all known about this for a hundred years," Trump said, apparently in reference to President Biden and his administration. "We've watched other countries do it and, in some cases, effective and in other cases, the country's overthrown or it's been totally ineffective. But we've watched this for a long time, and it's not unique, but it's unique for the United States. Yeah. If they do this and they've already done it, but if they want to follow through on this, yeah, it could certainly happen in reverse. It could certainly happen in reverse. What they've done is they've released the genie out of the box."

The former president claimed prosecutors have "done indictments in order to win an election," and then suggested that if he is president, he could indict someone who is beating him "very badly."

Trump suggests he or another Republican president could use Justice Department to indict opponents

In an interview with Univision News, former President Donald Trump claimed his political opponents have "let the genie out of the box."

www.cbsnews.com

Naw. I just can recognize a joke when I hear it.

Look! I found a video!

Say your not proud of my efforts!

That sounds like a joke to you??

 

[metis]

A judge can rule on the law, and the judge ruled about the exceptions that Texas law allows. But these exceptions are so vague that even judges and doctors don't understand them clearly. The judge made a humane ruling, and the republican AG gave a cruel response. The Texas supreme court backed up the cruelty. Cruelty is the point where it comes to right wing women's healthcare.

Exactly, and it is so utterly hypocritical that so many on the right decry "governmental overreach" and yet deny a woman's control over her own body and what's in it.

I personally don't like abortions, but I simply cannot go so far as to tell a woman what she must or must not do with her body and what's in it. Are we to let government decide which medical procedures she must or must not have? [rhetorical]

 

[SkepticThinker]

Your missing the point. This guy thinks he has a choice about when to be a dictator and when not to. I hope it is not true, but depending on who he has around him and who is in control of Congress, he might be right.

So let's imagine he decides to be a dictator, only on day one. But then 100 days into his administration things are not going exactly the way he wants, so he decides to have another day where he is a dictator. And then the news media criticism him for being a dictator, do he decides to be a dictator again and several people in the media just disappear. Oh and then there are protests, but he knows how to deal with that, another dictator day. And on it goes.


And even if you really think he was telling a joke, you still have to understand that if he was telling a joke he was doing it to avoid answering a question.

Imagine you are running for President. And an interviewer asks "If you win election, do you have any plans of abusing your power?". That is not a hard question, that is a softball of all softball questions. You shouldn't even have to think about it. You say "No, I would never ever do that!".

Not what Trump said.

Now imagine Barack Obama said it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

UPDATE: The Supreme Court of Texas vacated the lower court's decision that the abortion was permissible. They further opined that once she was on her deathbed (my words, their meaning), then she could have an abortion.

How absolutely disgustingly ridiculous that this woman had to go through all this and had to be on her DEATH BED before she could get the healthcare that she needed.

These laws aren't protecting human life; they're putting it in danger. And on top of that, somebody else gets to make the decision for you that you're almost-dead enough to get the care you need.
This is the "freedom" Republicans want? Sickening.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No I don't. The constitution is clear that abortion should be decided by each state. (9th amendment says rights not enumerated in the constitution does not mean the people don't have that right. This has been interpreted many times to be rights left to the states. The roe decision made a right out of thin air. If you want a national right to abortion or national ban you must amend the constitution.

So any state can decide the abortion issue themselves but the federal government cannot unless the constitution is amended. So negotiating or compromising on the issue makes sense at the state level.

The right to bodily autonomy is a "state's rights issue" ... ????

 

[F1fan]

I think that killing human life is wrong. In an abortion it is a fact that human life is killed. A woman has a right to bodily autonomy but she does not have a right to kill human life

Your dilemma is black/white thinking. When a fetus has defects and little chance for survival it isn't killing human life. Thyere is a broader context that you are ignoring, and doing so for political reasons, not the health of the patient. Thyis is why right wing motives are dangerous and immoral.

Most pregnancies are a result of a choice made by the father and mother. One result of sex is pregnancy, if you engage in sex then one of the potential outcomes is pregnancy. That is a choice made by both people.

And right wing politics has made the choice that it is their business when a couple gets pregnant and needs medical treatment. Right wing politics has decided the can make medical decisions for Texas women.

Many people say that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy but that is like saying consent to eating poison is not consent to dying. Pregnancy is potential consequence of their actions that most men and women know before having sex.

They should move out of red states if the want proper reproductive care, too.

The human life created did not consent to being created and cannot consent to being terminated.

More black/white thinking. No one disputes abortion is a moral dilemma, but there are more issues than the idealistic approach the far right brings to these discussions. Right wingers claim to care about life, but the superficial ideals demonstrates they don't.

So I am against abortion because it kills innocent human life.

That is your opinion, and you are forcing it on others who have more nuanced and realitic thinking.

But there are instances like Mrs. Cox where abortion should be allowed. From what I read the condition the baby has is terrible and is not going to live to term or very long after birth, like days, and this can negatively affect her ability to have children in the future. In this instance the mother and whoever she wants to be involved in the decision should be respected.

You now admit there are exceptions to killing babies. Why they sudden change of mind?

 

[F1fan]

How absolutely disgustingly ridiculous that this woman had to go through all this and had to be on her DEATH BED before she could get the healthcare that she needed.

These laws aren't protecting human life; they're putting it in danger. And on top of that, somebody else gets to make the decision for you that you're almost-dead enough to get the care you need.
This is the "freedom" Republicans want? Sickening.

Well that is the law that the party (formerly known as the party of family values) decided to create. The supreme court had to rule inhumanely because the law is inhumane. How will Texas voters respond?

 

[F1fan]

I made the point that republicans care nothing about life, and their attitudes towards healthcare access to all citizens is the biggest evidence of that. Someone pushed back saing that the republicans DO care about healthcare and life. Trump has stated that he wants to repeal the ACA if he is re-elected. Right wingers are agreeing with him.

Look at this hypocritical headline from FOX.

Republicans should pursue incremental changes to Obamacare that empower patients not bureaucrats​

4 ways to repeal Obamacare

Republicans are once more discussing ideas of how to fix the problems of Obamacare. Here are four ways to focus on increasing affordability by actually reducing costs.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Dao Hao Now]

I think that killing human life is wrong. In an abortion it is a fact that human life is killed. A woman has a right to bodily autonomy but she does not have a right to kill human life.

Most pregnancies are a result of a choice made by the father and mother. One result of sex is pregnancy, if you engage in sex then one of the potential outcomes is pregnancy. That is a choice made by both people.

Many people say that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy but that is like saying consent to eating poison is not consent to dying. Pregnancy is potential consequence of their actions that most men and women know before having sex.

The human life created did not consent to being created and cannot consent to being terminated.

So I am against abortion because it kills innocent human life. But there are instances like Mrs. Cox where abortion should be allowed. From what I read the condition the baby has is terrible and is not going to live to term or very long after birth, like days, and this can negatively affect her ability to have children in the future. In this instance the mother and whoever she wants to be involved in the decision should be respected.

Do you include pregnancy as result of rape and/or incest and/or when the heath of the mother is jeopardized as instances where abortion should be allowed?

If so, what other conditions do you see as being required, beyond probable non-viability of the fetus, as rising to the status of permissible abortions?

Where non-viability is concerned, (as in this case) what percentage of certainty of survivability should be the threshold for qualification to allow abortion, and who should be allowed to determine the likelihood of that certainty?