SCOTUS Strikes Down Texas Abortion Ban

originally posted by: dawnstar

I learned a long time ago, don't judge people in tough situations for the actions they take, or you may find yourself in a situation similar finding the action you criticized as being the best option available to you.

I know that one.

I seem to have managed to experience the fringe of many things without crossing over into danger. All I ever wanted was children and a quiet life. Married my high school boyfriend, yada, yada. I had it all planned out. Was not meant to be.

"Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans".

a reply to: thesaneone

32,000 women A YEAR get pregnant as a result of rape....... what would you suggest to those women?

originally posted by: snarnold
a reply to: thesaneone

32,000 women A YEAR get pregnant as a result of rape....... what would you suggest to those women?

Probably something Biblical/Koranic(I don't take sides) and archaic like "Shouldn't have gotten raped."

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: snarnold
a reply to: thesaneone

32,000 women A YEAR get pregnant as a result of rape....... what would you suggest to those women?

Probably something Biblical/Koranic(I don't take sides) and archaic like "Shouldn't have gotten raped."

Funny how you tried to play it off earlier like you were a neutral party, you just wanted everyone to stay "on-topic."

originally posted by: Talorc

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: snarnold
a reply to: thesaneone

32,000 women A YEAR get pregnant as a result of rape....... what would you suggest to those women?

Probably something Biblical/Koranic(I don't take sides) and archaic like "Shouldn't have gotten raped."

Funny how you tried to play it off earlier like you were a neutral party, you just wanted everyone to stay "on-topic."

Is there any other of my over 70,000 posts you would like to take umbrage with? Let's get this out of the way.

originally posted by: Talorc

An infant can't survive independent of its mother or caretaker.

Better make sure they both die then, if she has complications with the pregnancy and happens to live in Texas. I wonder if there's any federal officials who have the authority to make sure such stupidity wouldn't become legislation...

An infant is not fully conscious and has no capacity for thought or recollection.

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard on this topic. Infants are easily the most curious-minded things on the planet. They are in a CONSTANT state of learning.

An infant's brain and nervous system are not fully developed.

They are developed enough to understand that they are alive.

So why is the line drawn at infants, then?

The line is drawn before infancy...

First off I really don't like the idea of non medically necessary abortions but I would NEVER EVER tell another human being what to do with their own body. It is quite simply none of my business and those who think that it is somehow ok for you to make a life impacting decision for another person make me a bit sick. Also, on the flip side, abortion as birth control is equally disgusting.

All that being said I'm curious as to how all of those vehemently opposed to abortion on ATS will react to the following.

About a year and a half ago my wife became pregnant. At about 6 - 7 weeks while seeing the maternal fetal medicine specialist we were informed that the fetus was entirely non viable as the brain stem was not forming correctly and that the fetus had absolutely zero chance of remaining in utero for two more weeks let alone being carried to term. My wife was given the option to have a DNC or to "pass" the fetus naturally, something that could have entailed great complications.

We opted for the DNC. Basically an abortion. Were we wrong? For the crusaders; should she have attempted to carry to term? It was God's will after all right?

I just find it so sad that people, many who have never even been in such a situation, find it their personal duty to not only judge but to impose their own "morals", and i use that word very loosely, on others.

a reply to: s3cz0ne
In Oklahoma, there was an attempt to remove that decision from your wife. Or, rather, to make a doctor who performed the procedure into a criminal. Net result, the same.
www.theatlantic.com...

originally posted by: DeadFoot

Better make sure they both die then, if she has complications with the pregnancy and happens to live in Texas. I wonder if there's any federal officials who have the authority to make sure such stupidity wouldn't become legislation...

I don't believe in legislation restricting abortions. There are very good reasons for facilities to exist for performing abortions. However, I've never heard a convincing argument for women getting abortions because of "emotional unpreparedness" or whatever nonsense. A piss poor excuse if I've ever heard it. Imagine if people just renounced every difficult responsibility in their lives, citing "emotional unpreparedness."

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard on this topic. Infants are easily the most curious-minded things on the planet. They are in a CONSTANT state of learning.

Newborns have only the most rudimentary cognition. They can do things like recognize their mothers voice, but it doesn't go much further than that in the early stages. After a few months babies start to recall more and more information, but they don't just pop out of the womb in a "constant state of learning." The learning starts very slow, and picks up with age.

They are developed enough to understand that they are alive.

Can you qualify that in any way? What does it mean to "know you're alive"? Do newborns know anything at all, or do they simply react to stimuli and gradually develop self-awareness? I'm pretty sure it's the latter.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Talorc

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: snarnold
a reply to: thesaneone

32,000 women A YEAR get pregnant as a result of rape....... what would you suggest to those women?

Probably something Biblical/Koranic(I don't take sides) and archaic like "Shouldn't have gotten raped."

Funny how you tried to play it off earlier like you were a neutral party, you just wanted everyone to stay "on-topic."

Is there any other of my over 70,000 posts you would like to take umbrage with? Let's get this out of the way.

I don't know, I'd have to start looking through them. Would you like me to respond directly in each thread, or should I private message my responses?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: s3cz0ne
In Oklahoma, there was an attempt to remove that decision from your wife. Or, rather, to make a doctor who performed the procedure into a criminal. Net result, the same.
www.theatlantic.com...

Yeah sounds about right... Very sad. In our case it wasn't as if there would have been a viable human being in any sense of the word. Her choice was to further traumatize herself by letting nature take it's course and possibly get a life threatening infection or to have it handled by medical professionals.

Obviously neither of us were happy with the ultimate end result but we are both damn grateful that we were able to have doctor's guide us through this and do all they could to assist medically.

JMO, this country has gone mad. Hell, they've even outlawed porn in Utah if I understand it correctly. It's just so weird and at times very ironic that those who scream individual rights seem to not really care about the rights of a women. Just because it is their belief that life begins at conception doesn't mean that others feel the same way. If it were a different issue and a different group of people were trying to push through legislation on a belief that ran anathema to their philosophy they would be crying tyranny.

What a strange world we live in...

a reply to: Talorc

really??

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The [410 U.S. 113, 154] Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (sterilization).

We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.

Roe vs. Wade, opinion delivered by MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN

caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/410/113.html

it seems that some of the justices in the supreme court that decided roe vs. wade thought that women and their doctors should be taking all that nonsense into consideration..

a reply to: dawnstar

Did I not just say I'm opposed to legislation restricting abortion?

Then, I said I've never heard a convincing argument for abortions citing emotional reasons. Meaning I think it's wrong, not that it should be against the law.

As a final post in this thread, I'd like to apologize for some of the harsh and irrational comments I made at the outset. I was behaving childishly, and I am rather ashamed.

a reply to: Talorc

You think it's wrong, great. You know who doesn't think it's wrong? The unborn parasitic fetus. You know who doesn't care what happens? The unborn parasitic fetus. You want to know who gets to suffer if the mother and father really are unprepared for a child, whether financially or mentally? Oh, not you. Of course it wouldn't be you, then you might actually understand beyond repeated bleating of "life is sacred" and "fetus lives matter". It's the child you forced into this world with everything stacked against it, it's the mother you forced upon one of the greatest burdens an ordinary human can have, it's the father that watched helplessly as their partner's decision was denied. It's the child who grows up in the awful poverty-stricken home, it's the parents who have to work three minimum wage jobs just to send their kid through school and get a roof over its head. It's the mother who was impregnated by rape. It's the mother who had a condom break on her and the pill fail when she was sixteen. It's the kid who grows up in a broken home.

When you're one of the people who might bear the consequences of having a child in a bad situation, then you can be the one to decide. When it's your child, when it's your life, when it's your suffering. If you want to persevere and have the kid, great, that's wonderful, the fetus really doesn't care and any child should know the difference between reality and potential reality, but it's great. Until then it's just so much empty noise whining about the choices of people you will never meet or know about and whose situations you do not understand and whose choices will not affect you.

Nevermind.

-Redacted-

originally posted by: Talorc
a reply to: dawnstar
I've never heard a convincing argument for abortions citing emotional reasons.

Can you provide an example?

Often abortions cause emotional pain; I'm not sure what you're citing as an "emotional reason".

a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

Well...

They are the one that can get pregnant, not the men. With that being the case if they don't want to bother with bringing the issue up why should the men?

On the other hand if they all said "no glove, no love" I bet the guys WOULD pickup on that.

Kinda what happens when you put physical sex ahead of emotional commitment.