⮞ Texas Abortion Ban Stays In Effect With Help From SCOTUS ⮜

DreamRyderX

Active member
..

Well I said it before & I will say it again, IMHO, within the next 6 months we will know how the United States Supreme Court will handle this extremely contentious issue......Is Roe v. Wade & Casey bad Constitutional Law, or not.......Does the 14th Amendment protect the unborn or not.....Will adherence with the 10th Amendment resolve Constitutionality of Roe & Casey, & return this issue to the States & the People....etc, etc, etc.

You can speculate all you want, but in the end, those 9 Justices of the United States Supreme Court will be the ultimate deciders of fact, & regardless of where anyone stands on the issues, the United States Supreme Court decision(s) will be not be subject to appeal.....being that they are the highest Appellate Court in the United States of America. Only the American People, through amending their United States Constitution, can anyone affect the outcome if they disagree with the United States Supreme Courts finding(s)..........PERIOD.

..
 

hatty

cynical profane bastard
The only national anthem that rivaled ALL national anthems in the world was "Waltzing Matilda". Every country would know instantly what country this anthem belonged to. Not this hybrid sleeper(that few know the words), between "God Save the Queen", and the gospel "Let Freedom Ring". I guess they changed it, because it rivaled the American national anthem. Other than America, how many other national anthems could you put a country to? Definitely, ditch this new crappy, pompous, boring, and uninspiring Australian anthem. It is not who we are!!
Oh yes i hate our national anthem also...... a colonial ditty that conveniently erased 50,000 years of history
 

HBS Guy

Head Honcho 💉💉
Staff member
Morning after pill has made this rather moot, DRX. A few poor, colored women will have to give birth to unwanted children. Hopefully even these will be given the morning after pill through some underground channel. You aware how stupid Texas and you look, DRX?
 

hatty

cynical profane bastard
i once walked out of a walmart in texas with two mates and a shopping trolley full of beer. i could have bought a shotgun and lots of bullets at the same time...... no questions asked....... yup. three australian 21 year olds boozed to the nines and a shotgun. thats gonna end well y'all........ we took the beer but passed on the firearms...

/cool story bro

point remains that texas is nuts....... and like the US..... a laughing stock the world over
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
..

The Morning After Pill may 'prevent' a pregnancy, but it will not terminate an existing pregnancy according to Planned Parenthood......

Emergency contraception (EC), also known as the morning-after pill, will not harm a fetus. Still, women should not use EC when they’re pregnant. EC does not end a pregnancy — it can reduce the risk of pregnancy if started within 120 hours
..
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/l...ill-the-ec-have-affected-the-fetus-in-any-way

Is emergency contraception (EC) the same as abortion?
No. Emergency contraception is not abortion. EC pills prevent the egg and sperm from meeting by delaying ovulation......Emergency contraception does not end a pregnancy — it prevents pregnancy from happening. If you are already pregnant, EC pills will not harm the pregnancy.
..
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/heal...s prevent the egg,will not harm the pregnancy.

The Morning After Pill does not abort an existing pregnancy, nor does it cause harm to an existing pregnancy.........It is not an abortion......it's a contraceptive.


..
 
Last edited:

hatty

cynical profane bastard
..

The Morning After Pill may 'prevent' a pregnancy, but it will not terminate an existing pregnancy according to Planned Parenthood......



https://www.plannedparenthood.org/l...ill-the-ec-have-affected-the-fetus-in-any-way



https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/drugs/15653-emergency-contraception#:~:text=EC pills prevent the egg,will not harm the pregnancy.

The Morning After Pill does not abort an existing pregnancy, nor does it cause harm to an existing pregnancy.........It is not an abortion......it's a contraceptive.


..
Just like a dust bin in the restroom of petrol station?




PS aaahhhh fuck i didn't say fuck
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
No, it is not a technical question. It is a simple question. The right of all women to have a safe and legal abortion is EXPLICIT in the Constitution. The conditional restrictions set by the states, are only IMPLICIT to this right, as with all other Constitutional rights.

So, do you believe that women should have the right to an safe and legal abortion, WITHOUT ANY ADDED UNDO BURDENS?? When I say "undo burdens", I am not talking about any conditional restrictions imposed on this right, that relates to anytime after fetal viability(23 weeks), or to a life-threatening emergency. Okay?
First of all, I disagree with you that the right to an abortion is "explicit" in the Constitution. The right to the freedom of speech, the press, assembly, a trial by jury - those are explicit.

Abortions should be safe and legal.

Since I am not an expert at fetal development, I took the time to look up information on babies at 22 and 23 weeks. Here are the links ...


Within the 48% group that think that abortions should be legal with some restrictions, I would expect that the opinions of people in that group as to exactly which week would be acceptable as the latest at which an abortion should be allowed would vary from one person to another. Myself, I don't have a particular week #. I can tell you only that I don't support a blanket approval of abortions after a baby is viable outside of the womb. I don't especially like the idea of aborting a baby at 22-23 weeks.

You may stop trying to interrogate me now on the number of weeks. The answers I've given you are as good as it gets.
 

hatty

cynical profane bastard
i have my opinion on the matter..... it's clear, just as those who don't like my opinion...........

it should not however be enshrined in legislation........... end of!

oh sorry.......cunts :)
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
First of all, I disagree with you that the right to an abortion is "explicit" in the Constitution. The right to the freedom of speech, the press, assembly, a trial by jury - those are explicit.

Abortions should be safe and legal.

Since I am not an expert at fetal development, I took the time to look up information on babies at 22 and 23 weeks. Here are the links ...


Within the 48% group that think that abortions should be legal with some restrictions, I would expect that the opinions of people in that group as to exactly which week would be acceptable as the latest at which an abortion should be allowed would vary from one person to another. Myself, I don't have a particular week #. I can tell you only that I don't support a blanket approval of abortions after a baby is viable outside of the womb. I don't especially like the idea of aborting a baby at 22-23 weeks.

You may stop trying to interrogate me now on the number of weeks. The answers I've given you are as good as it gets.
Firstly, I am NOT interrogating you, even though you are still deflecting. I was only interested in where you personally stood on the issue of women's rights and Abortion. But, because it was so hard to pin you down to get a personal and direct answer, I just gave up. If you just want to insolate yourself behind some middle-of-the-road belief- consensus, then that's your business. All you are telling me is, that you agree with the beliefs of this group. It may or may not be your own personal belief. This is just avoidance. So, never mind.

Secondly, there is no "blanket" approval on any abortions after the fetus is viable. There are restrictions and conditions on all late-tern pregnancies. But as I said, these restrictions and conditions, in no way restrict the initial right of all women to have an abortion. Plus, commonsense would tell me, that any woman that is 6 months pregnant, clearly has already decided NOT to have an abortion. So this is just another distraction. Can a woman have an abortion during labor? Of course not!

Thirdly, I'm sure that the women in your article do NOT want to have an abortion. So not sure of the point you are making. 90% of pregnant women at this stage, don't want to abort a viable fetus anyway. Again, not sure of your point.

And, fourthly, you are correct it is not "Explicit" in the Constitution. It is "Implicit" in the "Due Process Clause"(privacy), in the 14th Amendment.

Exactly how do we make abortion safe and legal in Texas, Seth?? At 6 weeks an embryo doesn't even have a formed heart, let alone a heartbeat.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Firstly, I am NOT interrogating you, even though you are still deflecting. I was only interested in where you personally stood on the issue of women's rights and Abortion. But, because it was so hard to pin you down to get a personal and direct answer, I just gave up. If you just want to insolate yourself behind some middle-of-the-road belief- consensus, then that's your business. All you are telling me is, that you agree with the beliefs of this group. It may or may not be your own personal belief. This is just avoidance. So, never mind.

Secondly, there is no "blanket" approval on any abortions after the fetus is viable. There are restrictions and conditions on all late-tern pregnancies. But as I said, these restrictions and conditions, in no way restrict the initial right of all women to have an abortion. Plus, commonsense would tell me, that any woman that is 6 months pregnant, clearly has already decided NOT to have an abortion. So this is just another distraction. Can a woman have an abortion during labor? Of course not!

Thirdly, I'm sure that the women in your article do NOT want to have an abortion. So not sure of the point you are making. 90% of pregnant women at this stage, don't want to abort a viable fetus anyway. Again, not sure of your point.

And, fourthly, you are correct it is not "Explicit" in the Constitution. It is "Implicit" in the "Due Process Clause"(privacy), in the 14th Amendment.

Exactly how do we make abortion safe and legal in Texas, Seth?? At 6 weeks an embryo doesn't even have a formed heart, let alone a heartbeat.
I think banning or greatly inhibiting abortions at the six week point is too early.
 

hatty

cynical profane bastard
I shall post this on all the forums that i post in here.

I have enjoyed listening to different points of view and have found it on this forum.

My last day of work for the year........ so i shall be away for a fucking while. Tips hat to monk, JS, Mothra....... and the americans who prevent me from living in an echo chamber.

Merry Christmas everyone!!!!!

(haha the swearing was just for you JS)

 
Last edited:

HBS Guy

Head Honcho 💉💉
Staff member
Listened to a program about foster parents/adoptions etc from the US. Over HALF A MILLION CHILDREN are in foster care. So, yeah, preventing a few poor, colored women from having a safe abortion had to have been top priority for the Texarse legislature! /sarc
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Listened to a program about foster parents/adoptions etc from the US. Over HALF A MILLION CHILDREN are in foster care. So, yeah, preventing a few poor, colored women from having a safe abortion had to have been top priority for the Texarse legislature! /sarc

I would have thought, that the ignorant, redneck, racist, misogynistic, and xenophobic population of Texas, would WANT legal and safe abortions for ALL poor colored women!
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
Listened to a program about foster parents/adoptions etc from the US. Over HALF A MILLION CHILDREN are in foster care. So, yeah, preventing a few poor, colored women from having a safe abortion had to have been top priority for the Texarse legislature! /sarc
Five Hundred Thousand American Children divided by Seventy Three Million American Children

500,000 / 73,000,000 = .00684931506

Less than 1% of all American Children are in Foster Care ........ .68%

......................................~ OR ~

Better than 99+% of all American Children are not in Foster Care....

Your point?
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Five Hundred Thousand American Children divided by Seventy Three Million American Children

500,000 / 73,000,000 = .00684931506

Less than 1% of all American Children are in Foster Care ........ .68%

......................................~ OR ~


Better than 99+% of all American Children are not in Foster Care....

Your point?
Maybe we should just ignore all the unarmed victims that cops kill. I guess we should be happy, that they don't kill the other unarmed 99%, right? Sometimes, it's NOT always about the numbers!!
 

HBS Guy

Head Honcho 💉💉
Staff member
It does not matter what the fraction is. Over 500,000 unwanted children already in the foster system (and how many adopted?) and all the Texarse legistlature can do is pass a law to ensure even more unwanted children are born to poor/colored women????
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
I shall post this on all the forums that i post in here.

I have enjoyed listening to different points of view and have found it on this forum.

My last day of work for the year........ so i shall be away for a fucking while. Tips hat to monk, JS, Mothra....... and the americans who prevent me from living in an echo chamber.

Merry Christmas everyone!!!!!

(haha the swearing was just for you JS)

:smirk:smirk
You always make me chuckle. Keep up the good work

Merry Christmas to you Hatty
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
It does not matter what the fraction is. Over 500,000 unwanted children already in the foster system (and how many adopted?) and all the Texarse legistlature can do is pass a law to ensure even more unwanted children are born to poor/colored women????
I was being sarcastic to illustrate just how silly DreamriderX's false analogy was. I was not disagreeing with you in any way. Or, was this post not a response to my post?
 
Top