Supreme court begins hearing emergency abortion case

[SavannahMann]

If it's an emergency where there is no life in the child, it's not an abortion, and I have no problem saving the mothers life!

The States do. That is why the case has gone to the Supremes. That is the topic of the thread.

 

[Frankenstein]

The States do. That is why the case has gone to the Supremes. That is the topic of the thread.

I can tell you exactly why this is happening, it's because of the vagueness of what liberals will call an emergency, such as I am a slut college girl who can't afford a baby emergency, but got drunk and irresponsibly pregnant emergency!

 

[SavannahMann]

I can tell you exactly why this is happening, it's because of the vagueness of what liberals will call an emergency, such as I am a slut college girl who can't afford a baby emergency, but got drunk and irresponsibly pregnant emergency!

No. The law in question deals exclusively with health threats to the Mother.

One example. The woman wanted the Baby, but God decided that the answer was No. the woman’s water broke months too early. No way for the Baby to survive. No way to carry it long enough to even have a hope in hell of a premie.

The only answer was an Abortion. But because the woman’s life was not yet in jeopardy the Doctor in Texas could not. The woman went to court and got an order to allow the Abortion. The truth didn’t matter. The radical RW Attorney General said that if the Doctor performed the Abortion he would be prosecuted.

The only way under Texas law was to wait until the woman was at Deaths door, before the procedure was legal. The woman had to fly out of state to get the procedure.

There would not be a baby no matter what they did. There was no way to save it. So the obvious answer to terminate it as quickly as possible and protect the Mother was illegal.

That is what is wrong with the laws. The idea that the woman has to practically be in ICU before the Doctor is allowed to save her.

The laws are for hopeless cases where the health of the woman will be affected.

 

[Frankenstein]

No. The law in question deals exclusively with health threats to the Mother.

One example. The woman wanted the Baby, but God decided that the answer was No. the woman’s water broke months too early. No way for the Baby to survive. No way to carry it long enough to even have a hope in hell of a premie.

The only answer was an Abortion. But because the woman’s life was not yet in jeopardy the Doctor in Texas could not. The woman went to court and got an order to allow the Abortion. The truth didn’t matter. The radical RW Attorney General said that if the Doctor performed the Abortion he would be prosecuted.

The only way under Texas law was to wait until the woman was at Deaths door, before the procedure was legal. The woman had to fly out of state to get the procedure.

There would not be a baby no matter what they did. There was no way to save it. So the obvious answer to terminate it as quickly as possible and protect the Mother was illegal.

That is what is wrong with the laws. The idea that the woman has to practically be in ICU before the Doctor is allowed to save her.

The laws are for hopeless cases where the health of the woman will be affected.

Stop calling those things abortions!

 

[HeyNorm]

Why do you think that tens of millions of women are going to vote based on your personal opinion on their bodily autonomy?

Explain it to us.

Any vote should be predicated on the idea that, if abortion is a right, failing to exercise that right precludes the woman from receiving child support.

How do you see that vote coming out?

 

[HeyNorm]

Yet in the privacy of the voting booth where no one would know, they vote to protect Abortion don’t they?

Would they if the vote was really about choice?

If the vote was that all abortions would be legal, a protected right afforded to women, but should the woman neglect using this form of birth control, the government could not compel the Man to supply financial support for the result of her “choice”?

How do you think that vote would go?

I am the most pro choice poster on this site it would appear.

 

[justoffal]

Keep dreaming. You might win the ghetto vote, you know, irresponsible people with no cohisvie family unit

I thought lefty hated " Breeders"....

 

[SavannahMann]

Stop calling those things abortions!

The States call it an Abortion and threaten to prosecute the Doctors. So why should I use a different term? That is the point of this thread.

 

[SavannahMann]

Would they if the vote was really about choice?

If the vote was that all abortions would be legal, a protected right afforded to women, but should the woman neglect using this form of birth control, the government could not compel the Man to supply financial support for the result of her “choice”?

How do you think that vote would go?

I am the most pro choice poster on this site it would appear.

Put it on the ballot and find out.

 

[Frankenstein]

The States call it an Abortion and threaten to prosecute the Doctors. So why should I use a different term? That is the point of this thread.

Change the language that is not an elective process abortion is, in the case you cite the decision was already made

 

[SavannahMann]

Change the language that is not an elective process abortion is, in the case you cite the decision was already made

The problem is your side of the argument, calls it an Abortion.

Texas Supreme Court blocks order allowing abortion; woman who sought it leaves state

The Texas Supreme Court ruled that Kate Cox did not qualify for an abortion under the medical exception to the state’s near-total abortion ban. Just hours prior, Cox’s lawyers said she’d traveled out of state to have the procedure.

www.texastribune.org

The Attorney General said it was, and the Supreme Court said it was.

The fetus could not survive. Impossible. But hey, it’s alive and a living being. How long before your side starts to investigate Miscarriages to see if the Mother did everything possible to care for her unborn? Was she seem smoking a Cigarette? Were any drugs in her system?

It is your side of the argument that is far more radical than the Left. It is the RW side that is making the mistake of tacking God onto the issue. And the majority of the people support the woman being able to choose her own care. The problem with the RW is that they outsmarted themselves in a couple states are are furious about it.

In Wyoming and Kansas, the Republicans desperate to show how they were opposed to Obamacare passed State Constitutional Amendments declaring that medical procedures were between a doctor and the patient and the Government had no right to interfere.

Now of course, the RW loons in those states are claiming that an Abortion is not a medical procedure to get around that. But at the same time they have regulations in place on exactly who can perform an Abortion, and wouldn’t you be surprised to see it is only Doctors?

The Right is the radical side. Those opposed to Abortions are the radicals my Friend. Even you don’t want to say that an Abortion is an Abortion.

 

[HeyNorm]

Put it on the ballot and find out.

It makes sense. I would love to see it.

A true discussion of actual choice. Doubt you’d like the result though.

 

[Frankenstein]

The problem is your side of the argument, calls it an Abortion.

Texas Supreme Court blocks order allowing abortion; woman who sought it leaves state

The Texas Supreme Court ruled that Kate Cox did not qualify for an abortion under the medical exception to the state’s near-total abortion ban. Just hours prior, Cox’s lawyers said she’d traveled out of state to have the procedure.

www.texastribune.org

The Attorney General said it was, and the Supreme Court said it was.

The fetus could not survive. Impossible. But hey, it’s alive and a living being. How long before your side starts to investigate Miscarriages to see if the Mother did everything possible to care for her unborn? Was she seem smoking a Cigarette? Were any drugs in her system?

It is your side of the argument that is far more radical than the Left. It is the RW side that is making the mistake of tacking God onto the issue. And the majority of the people support the woman being able to choose her own care. The problem with the RW is that they outsmarted themselves in a couple states are are furious about it.

In Wyoming and Kansas, the Republicans desperate to show how they were opposed to Obamacare passed State Constitutional Amendments declaring that medical procedures were between a doctor and the patient and the Government had no right to interfere.

Now of course, the RW loons in those states are claiming that an Abortion is not a medical procedure to get around that. But at the same time they have regulations in place on exactly who can perform an Abortion, and wouldn’t you be surprised to see it is only Doctors?

The Right is the radical side. Those opposed to Abortions are the radicals my Friend. Even you don’t want to say that an Abortion is an Abortion.

In this particular case maybe, but overall abortion is wrong, period, and gives the father no recourse if he should wan the child!

 

[SavannahMann]

In this particular case maybe, but overall abortion is wrong, period, and gives the father no recourse if he should wan the child!

This particular Supreme Court case is about that practice in the States that ban abortion. This particular case is the kinds of emergency medical procedures that should be performed as soon as possible. Instead of either having the woman travel to a rational state, or waiting until she is on deaths doorstep.

It is intended for cases where there is no hope and a great deal of danger. Right now, the States that oppose it are treating it like the shooting of an intruder in your home.

If you shoot someone in your home. You better have a good reason. You have to be able to show that there was a threat to your life. You are Guilty until proven innocent in all honesty. And that isn’t bad. Because if you take a life we want to know why you did it.

Yes. You have the right to remain silent. If you do then the cops and prosecution will assume you took the life without cause. You would be well advised to get a lawyer before answering questions by the way.

The same standard is being applied to emergency abortions. Instead of assuming the Doctor did what was necessary to protect the life of the Mother it is assumed he performed an illegal abortion. The Doctor has to prove the procedure was necessary.

Now consider that. We aren’t talking about a Random Homeowner who shot an intruder in their daughter’s room. We are talking about a trained and experienced medical professional taking action with the consent of the patient to see to their health and wellbeing.

 

[Frankenstein]

This particular Supreme Court case is about that practice in the States that ban abortion. This particular case is the kinds of emergency medical procedures that should be performed as soon as possible. Instead of either having the woman travel to a rational state, or waiting until she is on deaths doorstep.

It is intended for cases where there is no hope and a great deal of danger. Right now, the States that oppose it are treating it like the shooting of an intruder in your home.

If you shoot someone in your home. You better have a good reason. You have to be able to show that there was a threat to your life. You are Guilty until proven innocent in all honesty. And that isn’t bad. Because if you take a life we want to know why you did it.

Yes. You have the right to remain silent. If you do then the cops and prosecution will assume you took the life without cause. You would be well advised to get a lawyer before answering questions by the way.

The same standard is being applied to emergency abortions. Instead of assuming the Doctor did what was necessary to protect the life of the Mother it is assumed he performed an illegal abortion. The Doctor has to prove the procedure was necessary.

Now consider that. We aren’t talking about a Random Homeowner who shot an intruder in their daughter’s room. We are talking about a trained and experienced medical professional taking action with the consent of the patient to see to their health and wellbeing.

I agree with you on the part in bold being a reason for saving the mothers life! I am telling you that the left would then use medical emergency incorrectly to perform abortions!

 

[Skylar]

Any vote should be predicated on the idea that, if abortion is a right, failing to exercise that right precludes the woman from receiving child support.

How do you see that vote coming out?

And if women disagree on what their vote should be predicated on, will you be there to mansplain it them?

I'm sure that's going to be so persuasive.

 

[Skylar]

Because the are not high on accountability for their body autonomy.

So women are going to vote AGAINST the power to control the use of their own bodies, because you said they are not high on 'accountability'?

Walk me through the 'accountability' argument that will persuade most women to vote AGAINST their own bodily autonomy.

Mansplain it for us.

 

[HeyNorm]

And if women disagree on what their vote should be predicated on, will you be there to mansplain it them?

I'm sure that's going to be so persuasive.

You think women are so stupid they need “rights” explained to them?

Ok bro.

 

[Frankenstein]

So women are going to vote AGAINST the power to control the use of their own bodies, because you said they are not high on 'accountability'?

Walk me through the 'accountability' argument that will persuade most women to vote AGAINST their own bodily autonomy.

Mansplain it for us.

The issue is, based on biology women carry the child,(science) that should not give them the right to kill the offspring of the man just because. The man not receiving equal protection is an issue. They have body autonomy, until said time they engage in sex willingly, and become pregnant!