How to Pro Lifer feel about the Texas case

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

This pregnancy is held by a married woman.

The fetus is nonviable. Carrying it poses a risk to the woman's health and life.

Paxton should be charged with attempted homicide.

 

[Lesh]

So she is like thousands and thousands of other women. Again to my point.

My mom had 4 kids. I was the first. A c section. The three that followed were born the same way.

Hence she should have qualified to abort any of them. The argument here is not ending the life of an imperfect fetus, it is in allowing any woman the right to abort.

SweetSue (if there was ever a misnomer) thinks she should make those decisions for people she has never met

 

[pknopp]

only if they were going to die in the womb or very shortly after that. Did you miss that part of the case?

Any fetus can die in the womb. Any baby can die shortly after.

 

[reconmark]

Sweetheart, I've been reading this boring, retreaded trash longer than you've been alive, I'm sure of that. Think just one original thought and then attempt to express it. Otherwise, this is BORING

And in all that reading, your geriatric ass is still an ignorant, backward go gooder.

People like you used the Bible to justify everything from slavery to state sanctioned denial of individual rights.

Of course it's boring to you, you're comfortable being a religious bigot.

 

[pknopp]

SeeetSue (if there was ever a misnomer) thinks she should make those decisions for people she has never met

Which is another argument. I'm simply discussing the facts and ramifications of this case.

 

[Arlette]

I feel bad for you. It must suck to live with a soul made of vinegar every day.

I assure it doesn't. I'm having fun getting under the skin of Jesus huffers

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Any fetus can die in the womb. Any baby can die shortly after.

this one is guaranteed to do so.

 

[SweetSue92]

And in all that reading, your geriatric ass is still an ignorant, backward go gooder.

People like you used the Bible to justify everything from slavery to state sanctioned denial of individual rights.

Of course it's boring to you, you're comfortable being a religious bigot.

Sorry, I almost nodded off. Need more coffee

 

[SweetSue92]

I assure it doesn't. I'm having fun getting under the skin of Jesus huffers

Doesn't get under my skin. I knew this about you, sadly, and about this place.

I will pray for you

 

[pknopp]

this one is guaranteed to do so.

So we base the right to abort on odds? How would we define these odds? She perhaps wants to get pregnant again in the future. She will still have to go through this procedure.

In a future case it would be a baby she wants as opposed to this one. An argument any woman could use.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So we base the right to abort on odds? How would we define these odds? She perhaps wants to get pregnant again in the future. She will still have to go through this procedure.

In a future case it would be a baby she wants as opposed to this one. An argument any woman could use.

There are no odds, it is going to happen.

She does want to get pregnant in the future, thus her desire to avoid having a C-section this time.

An argument any woman could use as long as their baby has full trisomy 18.

 

[pknopp]

There are no odds, it is going to happen.

She does want to get pregnant in the future, thus her desire to avoid having a C-section this time.

Woman has two kids. Had them by c-section. Gets pregnant with a healthy fetus but decides now is not a good time for a third. You know, starting a new job and all. Decides she does not want to undergo a surgical procedure right now.

Why would she not have the same right?

An argument any woman could use as long as their baby has full trisomy 18.

Why? There are no guarantee's for any woman.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Woman has two kids. Had them by c-section. Gets pregnant with a healthy fetus but decides now is not a good time for a third. You know, starting a new job and all. Decides she does not want to undergo a surgical procedure right now.

Why would she not have the same right?

because that baby will not have a 100% chance to die in the womb or shorty after.

 

[pknopp]

because that baby will not have a 100% chance to die in the womb or shorty after.

So again, how do we define what risks we will demand from a woman?

There is no 100% risk of this woman being harmed either.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So again, how do we define what risks we will demand from a woman?

how about this, keep your big government loving authoritarian self out of the equation and let the woman and her doctor make the best decision for the individual.

 

[initforme]

Why is she wanting more than 2 kids? That seems weird. Something gs off on this story.

 

[pknopp]

how about this, keep your big government loving authoritarian self out of the equation and let the woman and her doctor make the best decision for the individual.

I'm arguing that is exactly what this case is arguing. I have taken no sides here.

 

[22lcidw]

This pregnancy is held by a married woman.

The fetus is nonviable. Carrying it poses a risk to the woman's health and life.

Paxton should be charged with attempted homicide.

So, abortions or denial of abortions are generalized and not specific. The issue from the beginning.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I'm arguing that is exactly what this case is arguing. I have taken no sides here.

The judge in the case specifically said this was based on the merits of the one individual and had no bearing on any other person.

 

[Lesh]

Why is she wanting more than 2 kids? That seems weird. Something gs off on this story.

None of your fucking business…