Texas abortion ban to take effect Wednesday; pro-aborts seeking last-minute block

a reply to: olaru12
Excommunicate the mother who wants to protect her young child from the damage that would be done by carrying a pregnancy with twins to term but, cover up the sexual abuse in their own ranks.

a reply to: Tempter

The hypocrisy astounds me. How can the SAME PEOPLE hold two opposing views at the same time?

On one hand, abortion is supposedly 'murder', although incarnation hasn't even started, so silver cord is not yet attached, which means the soul can (permanently) leave the fetus in a microsecond, meaning there's really no time to feel any pain. The visiting soul usually only comes to 'try out' the fetus from time to time (this is the moments when the mother can feel the baby 'kicking' - it's not kicking, it's just a soul trying out a new potential for a body, and it's not even a body yet), to familiarize themselves with it, 'customize the vibes' in a way, and to learn how to 'operate' such a vehicle after a perhaps long absence from the physical world.

But sure, it's 'murder', although no one dies (can't die before birth, can you? Dying requires birth!), and morally/ethically it's 100% the same as removing a tumor; without soul, what is a fetus, even if it 'looks like human' but organic, biological, unfeeling mass that can be removed from a body without harm to anyone?

On the other hand, military is a normal thing, it's cool to send human beings to be indoctrinated and conditioned to obey a command without thinking, INSTANTLY, and to dismantle and rebuild their personality into an unfeeling killing robot. No one I have known has been the same after they've gone through THAT - they have always lost something, their creativity has suffered, and so on. The scariest bit is that these brainwashed people carry this programming with them at all times, so basically they could just INSTANTLY murder someone just because someone (I suppose 'rank' comes to play, though) commands them to!

It's somehow _NOT_ murder to send drones, whose operators sit safely far away in a guarded, air-conditioned, protected building or bunker and are in no danger of being killed, to explode, shoot, kill and end the lives of large groups of people - somehow the drone can surgically pick only the 'evil ones'.

It's completely morally and ethically correct to murder human beings, if they are designated as 'evil ones' and they wear a certain type and style of fabric around their human body. In THIS case, it doesn't matter that the birth has happened, or that their body resembles a human being - because they're designated as EVIL.

So, all that's needed in this whole 'abortion' mess, is to just designate every fetus EVIL and everyone should stop caring. Maybe bring some 'military fabrics' into the womb to wrap around the fetus so it can 'legitimately' be murdered. Maybe invent a mini-drone to go into the birth canal to then bomb the fetus to smithereens!

I am exaggerating, of course, to underline and highlight the idiotic, schizophrenic hypocrisy that so many people seem to not even notice.. you can't support murder on one hand, and then call a non-murderous, completely ethical procedure murder at the same time and be wise, intelligent or balanced human being. Something's gotta give, and I think that something is SANITY.

Can't even shake my head enough about this, I'd need about 8000 heads to reach a proper level of head shakage.

Re: www.msn.com... aqn

Is this true that one out of every four women have murdered a child before he or she was born?

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Sookiechacha

When does the human spirit/personality inhabit the little fetus?

That's when the life-form becomes more than just another animal in the womb.

Has science determined when that is yet?

I think the spirit enters the human body at 19yrs of age and not a minute before. Prior to that they are just animals... Prove me wrong?

a reply to: Shoujikina

WOW! Someone that believes the same as me.

Thanks.

a reply to: Tempter

So the right don’t want the government to intervene and enforce covid vaccines, but they want the government to intervene and stop the personal choices of pregnant women?

Interesting.

I hope you understand the hypocrisy there.

Link

John Seago, of the Texas Right to Life:

" " I mean the euphemism of "managing" a miscarriage or "expediting" a miscarriage, that's a euphemism for causing the death of an unborn child", Seago said. "And that's what's clearly being opposed by the legislature."

But, Seago acknowledges that it removes some options for health care providers.

" We understand that our ethics and commitment to human life does limit medicine... from being as efficient as it wants to be," he said. "However, this is protecting innocent human life and seeking to protect these values." "

So, according to this spokesperson for the Texas Right to Life group..
A women's (or girl"s) water breaks when she is 17 weeks pregnant. At this point, the fetus is doomed, and the women is at risk of sepsis. But, no, her doctor shouldn't be allowed to expedite the miscarriage by inducing labor which would reduce the risk of her developing sepsis because it would cause the death of the fetus, which at this point isn't gonna survive anyways. Pregnant women (and girls) should just be willing to accept inefficient care if they happen to miscarry because... the fetus is more innocent than they are? Never mind, it was the water breaking that doomed the fetus.
It is this kind of crap that makes me suggest that the prolife crowd wants to exalt the rights of a fertilized egg way above the rights of the women who holds that egg within her. That giving the unborn the same rights as the born is not feasible since in order to do this, you will end up taking away the rights of the women and girls.

Enforcement of the law has been federally blocked.

To all those that were saying to me on here it would never be blocked or reversed I say, told you so, it has.

a reply to: Nexttimemaybe
And...
It has been unblocked.
Back to children having children and women getting inefficient maternity care I guess.

a reply to: Tempter

abortion

a reply to: carewemust

A man will sue her without crying

a reply to: Chadwickus

I doubt they do.

a reply to: olaru12

Science has determined that bacon tastes good. Veal tastes good. Unhatched eggs taste good. And fertilized unborn humans taste good.

Breakfast isnt moral...its just a meal

Update 12.10.2021

The U.S. Supreme Court rules that Texas's ban on abortion stays as is.

They will not overturn it: www.cnbc.com...

originally posted by: Tempter
TheThinkingConservative

Texas may become the first state in almost half a century to effectively ban abortions Wednesday, thanks to a federal court’s decision not to block a law enacted earlier this year against aborting babies with detectable heartbeats.

Signed in May by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, the Texas Heartbeat Act requires abortionists to screen for a preborn baby’s heartbeat and prohibits abortion if a heartbeat can be heard (generally as early as six weeks), with exceptions only for medical emergencies.

The law relies on a unique enforcement mechanism. Instead of having the state prosecute violators, it “exclusively” empowers private citizens to bring civil suits against abortionists, punishable by a minimum of $10,000 in statutory relief per abortion plus whatever additional injunctive relief is deemed “sufficient to prevent the defendant from violating this chapter or engaging in acts that aid or abet violations of this chapter.”

Notably, these private citizens do not need to have any connection to anyone involved in a specific abortion. South Texas College of Law professor Josh Blackman has explained that the advantage of this approach is that “Planned Parenthood can’t go to court and sue Attorney General [Ken] Paxton like they usually would because he has no role in enforcing the statute. They have to basically sit and wait to be sued.”

The Texas Tribune reports that abortion organizations including Planned Parenthood Center for Choice and Whole Woman’s Health Alliance filed emergency motions with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals seeking a stay on enforcing the law. But on Friday night the court canceled a hearing on the matter that had been planned for Monday, then denied the motions on Sunday afternoon.

The 5th Circuit’s denial cleared the way for the law to take effect Wednesday, September 1, but abortion defenders continue to pursue additional avenues to block it.

ATS, I know this could become a heated discussion, so let this be a warning to keep it civil.

What do you think? Is this specific measure of allowing individuals to sue abortionists a good way to tackle the problem of abortion?

originally posted by: carewemust
Update 12.10.2021

The U.S. Supreme Court rules that Texas's ban on abortion stays as is.

They will not overturn it: www.cnbc.com...

originally posted by: Tempter
TheThinkingConservative

Texas may become the first state in almost half a century to effectively ban abortions Wednesday, thanks to a federal court’s decision not to block a law enacted earlier this year against aborting babies with detectable heartbeats.

Signed in May by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, the Texas Heartbeat Act requires abortionists to screen for a preborn baby’s heartbeat and prohibits abortion if a heartbeat can be heard (generally as early as six weeks), with exceptions only for medical emergencies.

The law relies on a unique enforcement mechanism. Instead of having the state prosecute violators, it “exclusively” empowers private citizens to bring civil suits against abortionists, punishable by a minimum of $10,000 in statutory relief per abortion plus whatever additional injunctive relief is deemed “sufficient to prevent the defendant from violating this chapter or engaging in acts that aid or abet violations of this chapter.”

Notably, these private citizens do not need to have any connection to anyone involved in a specific abortion. South Texas College of Law professor Josh Blackman has explained that the advantage of this approach is that “Planned Parenthood can’t go to court and sue Attorney General [Ken] Paxton like they usually would because he has no role in enforcing the statute. They have to basically sit and wait to be sued.”

The Texas Tribune reports that abortion organizations including Planned Parenthood Center for Choice and Whole Woman’s Health Alliance filed emergency motions with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals seeking a stay on enforcing the law. But on Friday night the court canceled a hearing on the matter that had been planned for Monday, then denied the motions on Sunday afternoon.

The 5th Circuit’s denial cleared the way for the law to take effect Wednesday, September 1, but abortion defenders continue to pursue additional avenues to block it.

ATS, I know this could become a heated discussion, so let this be a warning to keep it civil.

What do you think? Is this specific measure of allowing individuals to sue abortionists a good way to tackle the problem of abortion?

In California, Governor Newsom declares his state to be a "sanctuary" for anyone who wants an abortion, even if that form of murder is made illegal (not legal) nationwide.

apnews.com...

originally posted by: carewemust
Update 12.10.2021

The U.S. Supreme Court rules that Texas's ban on abortion stays as is.

They will not overturn it: www.cnbc.com...

They haven't ruled on the Texas's ban.

They are allowing the opposition proceed with the case dispite not having been impacted by the ban.

They are allowing the ban to remain in place while the case proceeds.

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: carewemust
Update 12.10.2021

The U.S. Supreme Court rules that Texas's ban on abortion stays as is.

They will not overturn it: www.cnbc.com...

They haven't ruled on the Texas's ban.

They are allowing the opposition proceed with the case dispite not having been impacted by the ban.

They are allowing the ban to remain in place while the case proceeds.

The very fact that scotus voted 8-1 to allow the ban until their final decision next year is outright shocking.

Only soto voted to prevent the ban, and only soto voted to allow biden's separate lawsuit to continue.

Almost nobody expected scotus to even consider the TX case, the battle was over the MUCH less restrictive MS case.

Spin it all you want, today's scotus ruling is nothing short of an absolute catastrophe for democrats.

a reply to: carewemust

Scotus voted 8-soto to leave the TX ban in place until their final decision next year.

This isn't that final decision, but is still nuclear bomb level catastrophe for democrats.


8-soto!

Did I just coin a new phrase?