Jump to content

Florida becomes first state to try to mirror Texas fetal "heartbeat" abortion law.


Aristides

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Aristides said:

Move to the southern US and set your watch back 100 years.

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/abortion-law-florida-texas-1.6186255

the difference between the Texas law and New York law

is 18 weeks

yet people want to pretend that New York

is some bastion of women's rights

and Texas is full on handmaid's tale

because of that minor difference

grow up you partisan hacks

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

the difference between the Texas law and New York law

is 18 weeks

yet people want to pretend that New York

is some bastion of women's rights

and Texas is full on handmaid's tale

because of that minor difference

grow up you partisan hacks

If you think the difference between 6 weeks pregnant and 24 weeks pregnant is a "minor difference", you are dumb as a post about pregnancy.  

How would you react if California enacted a law in which private citizens could sue gun providers for selling guns, and receive $10,000 plus legal fees from the government?  What if the law specifically eliminated any way a gun provider could defend itself against such a suit?

That is what the law in Texas has done to eliminate abortion.  

I hope all the men who whine about child support because women have "options" understand that they'll be paying a lot more child support if this law stands.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

If you think the difference between 6 weeks pregnant and 24 weeks pregnant is a "minor difference", you are dumb as a post about pregnancy.  

How would you react if California enacted a law in which private citizens could sue gun providers for selling guns, and receive $10,000 plus legal fees from the government?  What if the law specifically eliminated any way a gun provider could defend itself against such a suit?

That is what the law in Texas has done to eliminate abortion.  

I hope all the men who whine about child support because women have "options" understand that they'll be paying a lot more child support if this law stands.

 

abortion is not a right

the right to keep and bear arms is a right

you compare apples and oranges

six weeks is as arbitrary a line to draw as twenty four weeks

you're still terminating a life in both cases

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

If kidney's had heartbeats he might have a point but they don't and he doesn't.

if a pregnancy would cost a mother a kidney

and an abortion would save her kidney

that seems like reasonable grounds for an abortion

most abortions do not fall into that category though

that would obviously be an extremely rare circumstance

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

What the real argument is, is when is it a baby and not just what baby killers call "a clump of cells."

Is it when a foetal heartbeat starts thumping like Texas says or is it when the foetus becomes 50/50 viable as a baby outside the womb like New York says.

I am a clump of cells

you are a clump of cells

if someone kills either of us without proper cause

such as self defense

it's still murder

us being a clump of cells doesn't change that

it is a pointless distinction that doesn't effect the morality of the situation whatsoever

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're an at conception guy, then. Life begins at conception for you, right?

Whatever, but my point is that's the real argument. When does life begin. When does abortion become murder? With a morning after bill or when you have to chop the foetus up as it comes out to meet the day - otherwise you'll have a little screaming baby in a sink.

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

abortion is not a right

the right to keep and bear arms is a right

you compare apples and oranges

six weeks is as arbitrary a line to draw as twenty four weeks

you're still terminating a life in both cases

Access to abortion is a right conferred through Roe vs. Wade.  The Texas law is an end run around it.  If it goes to Supreme Court and they overturn it, that right will be removed.

Note the word Amendment in "Second Amendment"; that means it was a change from the Constitution as it was originally crafted.  With political will, it could be changed again. 

Same applies to Freedom of Religion; would it be acceptable for atheists to be paid $10,000 to sue Churches and ministers so that worshippers couldn't attend?  

This law undermines the safety of the freedoms and rights of all Americans; if it'll succeed to overturn the right to access to abortion, similar laws will succeed for other rights as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

What the real argument is, is when is it a baby and not just what baby killers call "a clump of cells."

Misogynistic people have an overwhelming need for controlling women, limiting their freedoms and punishing them for being sexually active.  Misogyny is behind these abortion-limiting laws, not concern for unborn babies. 

If life were truly sacrosanct to the anti-abortion misogynists, they'd offer support to single women and their children and insist that men take control of their own birth control and face punishment if they do not.   Their attitude would not be that women are responsible for birth control because "they have more to lose", or that if she can't afford kids, she shouldn't have them because it's not the taxpayers job to support her kid.  This is especially true if the pregnancy is due to rape or incest.  

Anyone who supports this law is a misogynistic AH.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Access to abortion is a right conferred through Roe vs. Wade.  The Texas law is an end run around it.  If it goes to Supreme Court and they overturn it, that right will be removed.

Note the word Amendment in "Second Amendment"; that means it was a change from the Constitution as it was originally crafted.  With political will, it could be changed again. 

Same applies to Freedom of Religion; would it be acceptable for atheists to be paid $10,000 to sue Churches and ministers so that worshippers couldn't attend?  

This law undermines the safety of the freedoms and rights of all Americans; if it'll succeed to overturn the right to access to abortion, similar laws will succeed for other rights as well.

Roe v Wade is bad law

abortion is a state's rights issue

the SCOTUS overrode the 10th amendment, an actual right, to impose a right that never existed on the states

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  

10 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Misogynistic people have an overwhelming need for controlling women, limiting their freedoms and punishing them for being sexually active.  Misogyny is behind these abortion-limiting laws, not concern for unborn babies. 

If life were truly sacrosanct to the anti-abortion misogynists, they'd offer support to single women and their children and insist that men take control of their own birth control and face punishment if they do not.   Their attitude would not be that women are responsible for birth control because "they have more to lose", or that if she can't afford kids, she shouldn't have them because it's not the taxpayers job to support her kid.  This is especially true if the pregnancy is due to rape or incest.  

Anyone who supports this law is a misogynistic AH.  

 

 

Yeah right, blah, blah, blah "you hate women, probably a racist too"...blah, blah, blah, "My body my choice except when I demand you inject a possible toxin into your body," and so on.

So is it a baby when it has a heartbeat? Is it a baby when it can be viable outside the womb? Because if it is a baby and you kill it you're a killer. Your 'woman card' doesn't give you a pass to kill babies.

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

no

not sure what this analogy has to do with my post though

We don’t even force parents to give blood to their 10 year old child if it will save their life.

Bodily autonomy rights of an individual trumps the life of a 10 year old child.

Why should we make an exception for a fetus in this regard?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

We don’t even force parents to give blood to their 10 year old child if it will save their life.

Bodily autonomy rights of an individual trumps the life of a 10 year old child.

Why should we make an exception for a fetus in this regard?

what of the bodily autonomy of the child?

that's why

abortion is obviously different for that reason

your analogy is apples and oranges

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

what of the bodily autonomy of the child?

that's why

abortion is obviously different for that reason

your analogy is apples and oranges

The analogy is perfect.

Is it apples and oranges because you think that a woman’s bodily autonomy is worth less than a fetus?

I see this as giving a fetus more rights than a 10 year old child.  Giving blood is simple.  Life saving.  And yet, the parent’s bodily autonomy is worth more than the life of a 10 year old child.

 

 

Edited by TreeBeard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

The analogy is perfect.

Is it apples and oranges because you think that a woman’s bodily autonomy is worth less than a fetus?

I see this as giving a fetus more rights than a 10 year old child.  Giving blood is simple.  Life saving.  And yet, the parent’s bodily autonomy is worth more than the life of a 10 year old child.

no I see their autonomy as equal

you see the child as having no autonomy

you only see the mother's life as valuable

I see both lives as valuable

your analogy is trash because only one person's body autonomy is in the mix

in the case of abortion two people's bodily autonomy is in the mix, not just one

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

no I see their autonomy as equal

you see the child as having no autonomy

you only see the mother's life as valuable

I see both lives as valuable

 

But you don’t see the 10 year old child’s right to life overriding a parent’s right to bodily autonomy, correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

  

 

Yeah right, blah, blah, blah "you hate women, probably a racist too"...blah, blah, blah, "My body my choice except when I demand you inject a possible toxin into your body," and so on.

So is it a baby when it has a heartbeat? Is it a baby when it can be viable outside the womb? Because if it is a baby and you kill it you're a killer. 

Anti-vaxers can make the choice to not get a vaccine, if they want to.  But there are consequences to that choice - like a higher chance of getting sick, ending up in the hospital, dying, not being able to enter certain places.  

There are also consequences to abortion, even if the government isn't trying to force their views on women.  There are also consequences to birthing a baby; why should government force those consequences on women?

My opinion about when a foetus is a baby is irrelevant; viability seems like a reasonable cut-off to me.  And in fact It's very rare for a baby past viability to be aborted unless there are serious health issues.  The constant refrain heard from anti-abortion people that women just "kill babies even at term" is complete bullshit, used to stir up emotion instead of thought.  Lying so they can force both men and women to have children they didn't intend and don't want.  

1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

Your 'woman card' doesn't give you a pass to kill babies.

Men who don't want children are only too happy to support their child being aborted, even if they publicly denounce abortion.  They'll encourage, financially support and even coerce abortion, including by physical abuse.   Your "man card" doesn't give you a pass to pretend men have nothing to do with whether or not a woman gets an abortion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

But you don’t see the 10 year old child’s right to life overriding a parent’s right to bodily autonomy, correct?

that is different

the 10 year old child's bodily autonomy is not being infringed upon

the way the child's bodily autonomy is being infringed upon with abortion

one is actively killing the child

the other is allowing a child to die that could be saved

there is a stark and significant difference between the two situations

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

 

one is actively killing the child

the other is allowing a child to die that could be saved

there is a stark and significant difference between the two situations

So, you’re saying that one must actively kill the child to infringe upon the child’s right to life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...