Texas' 6-week abortion ban goes into effect after U.S. Supreme Court stays silent - Wine aunts on suicide watch

Source, https://archive.is/WREvN
Washington — A controversial Texas law banning abortions after six weeks of pregnancy went into effect at midnight after the U.S. Supreme Court did not act on a request from pro-abortion rights groups and providers to block it before early Wednesday.
The law is one of the nation's most restrictive, prohibiting nearly all abortions in the state, the abortion rights groups warned. The high court is expected to issue a decision on the bid from the providers.
In addition to outlawing abortion as early as six weeks into a pregnancy — before most women know they're pregnant — the measure allows private citizens to bring civil lawsuits against anyone who provides an abortion after six weeks or helps a woman access the procedure, such as a friend who drives a woman to obtain an abortion, or clinic staff. Those found in violation of the law are required to pay at least $10,000 to the person who successfully brought the suit.
The pro-abortion rights organizations had warned that, if permitted to take effect, the ban "would immediately and catastrophically reduce abortion access in Texas." The groups included Planned Parenthood, the Center for Reproductive Rights, the ACLU and abortion providers. They estimated that at least 85% of women who undergo abortions in Texas are at least six weeks pregnant and warned the law would force many clinics to close.
"Patients who can scrape together resources will be forced to attempt to leave the state to obtain an abortion, and many will be delayed until later in pregnancy," lawyers representing the abortion providers wrote to the Supreme Court. "The remaining Texans who need an abortion will be forced to remain pregnant against their will or to attempt to end their pregnancies without medical supervision."
But Texas officials argued the claims raised by the abortion providers and advocacy groups were "hyperbolic" and said they "have not shown that they will be personally harmed by a bill that may never be enforced against them by anyone, much less by the governmental defendants."
"If any party is facing irreparable injury in this application, it is respondents, along with the state they serve and its people," they said in a filing with the Supreme Court.
Governor Greg Abbott, a Republican, signed the measure into law in May, with Texas joining a dozen other states that have passed laws banning abortions at early stages in pregnancy. Known as "heartbeat bills," they seek to ban the procedures after a fetal heartbeat can first be detected.
But pro-abortion rights advocates argue the measures, which have been blocked by federal courts from taking effect, are unconstitutional and violate Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that established a woman's right to an abortion. The court has found a woman can terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability, which generally occurs around 24 weeks.
Abortion rights groups argue the Texas law differs from the others because it incentivizes members of the public, rather than state officials, to enforce the ban, and they claim state lawmakers designed the measure that way to insulate it from federal judicial review.
"Texans, like everyone else in this country, should be able to count on safe abortion care in their own state," Amy Hagstrom Miller, president and CEO of Whole Woman's Health, which runs abortion clinics, said in a statement Monday. "No one should be forced to drive hundreds of miles or be made to continue a pregnancy against their will, yet that's what will happen unless the Supreme Court steps in."
The groups' request for Supreme Court action in the dispute came after a federal appeals court in Texas delayed a district court hearing set for Monday and denied their bid to speed up consideration of the case or stop the law from taking effect pending appeal.
The pro-abortion rights groups warned that without Supreme Court intervention, Texas would be allowed to ban abortions after six weeks before the justices consider a legal battle over an abortion law from Mississippi this fall.
The Supreme Court said in May it would take up a blockbuster dispute over Mississippi's ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, presenting the first test of the limits of abortion access to go before the court's expanded conservative majority.
In that case, Republican-led states including Texas are calling for the court to overrule Roe and uphold Mississippi's 15-week ban.
 
Well, at least you're off this "birth" shit, since that's a scientifically irrelevant event to the question of whether or not this organism is human. It's a start.

Are you logically consistent with this criteria, however? Do coma patients not deserve life? Even "brain dead" people who seem gone can come back. An innocent life which will inevitably be viable and then born if not killed first surely has at least as much value. If not then I'd like to hear why.

You should actually read that story, it's pretty cool. It's also interesting as it contrasts so well with abortion; a parent trying to save his brain dead son who's not expected to ever even think again, versus a parent trying to kill her developing child who's certainly going to be thinking soon.

Which one of them is doing the better thing in your opinion?

So just a little context for the following rant...

In my personal opinion, a human body with no mind has no real value, I don't care what other people get up to with my body after I bite it.

To me the things that make a person, well, a person, are thier emotions, their memories, thier experiences, and the connections they make to other people.

Basically, the human mind is what's important, or if you want to get spiritual with it, the human soul is what is important.

Now I don't believe in things That I can't in someway observe or interact with in someway. To me the brain contain's everything a person is, thier is nothing else.

So... Do coma patients deserve life?

That one's a difficult question and one thats kind of up to interpretation... But In my opinion the answer is yes, that may not seem consistent with my stance on abortion... But let sperg out about my reasons for a bit.

On one hand much like a fetus, A coma patient really isn't doing much and tend to be an active drain on whoever is paying to keep them alive.

on the other hand, unlike a fetus, generally, a coma patient had a life before they fell into the coma, they had a functioning brain that contained a lifetime's worth of emotions, experiences, opinions, and relationships.

In short, they already had all things that make a person, a person, and could potentially be restored to a state of full personhood.

A fetus, in my interpretation (Be aware this is just my interpretation.) Is not a person yet, it merely could become a person one day.

It's the difference between a blank canvas and a beautiful but damaged work of art.

If you don't have the time, the energy, or the means to make the blank canvas into a work of art, and you need the space it's taking up, it would be reasonable to throw it out or give it away, wouldn't it?

If a work of art is damaged on the other hand, many people would attempt to restore it before giving up on it.

So yeah, a coma patient deserves life, or atleast a fair shake at waking up, because it was a person at one point, And could potentially be restored.

A fetus, before a certain point, is absolutely not a person as I define one, it's just a blank canvas made of meat... it's up to the people who have the fetus to decide if they want to commit to making it into a full person, (birthing and raising the kid), or at least to going far enough that someone else can take over (giving the kid up for adoption), or if they would rather just... not deal with that at the moment.

The 9 week thing is my personal limit, because, at that point the brain has reached a point in it's development that I can no longer be sure that it isn't capable of feeling emotion or suffering.

As for your other question, the person trying to save a coma patient is doing a good thing, they are trying to restore a life that already exists.

The person aborting a fetus is doing something neutral, it's impossible to know what the blank canvas may have become given time so yeah, net neutral, because you may have just deprived the world of a genius like einstein or something... but you also could have just saved it from giga-hitler.

This may not be "Logically Consistent" enough for you, But I only barely passed my logic classes back in college, and this whole debate is rooted pretty heavily in emotions to begin with.

Feel free to disagree, or make fun of me for this long rambling post... but It's what I believe, and it'll take a lot more than the words of a few guys on the internet to change that.
 
That's all you have to offer the world, and so it's all you can offer here.

I'd feel bad for you if you weren't a spiteful baby killer. Being reduced down to your genitals used to be something feminists opposed, it was considered misogynistic when a man did that to a woman...and yet here you are doing it to yourself of your own volition. 🤔

You're damaged, and you misinterpret that as liberated, then project your sexual immorality and lack of human worth onto others trying to reduce them down to their genitals like you. Misery really does want company, huh?

Incoming single word "reply" or urging to copulate.
 
I wanted to avoid this thread. However>>>

1631662505019.png
 
You know, that's an embarrassing statement coming from someone who said:
guys just see us as warm wet holes to be used and discarded.
i wish it weren't so but it is.
Have you ever considered therapy? You might even find a relationship where someone actually sees you as human if you can get over whatever made you this way.

Alternatively, enjoy being a cat mom.
 
Make good life choices.

That's all you have to offer the world, and so it's all you can offer here.

I'd feel bad for you if you weren't a spiteful baby killer. Being reduced down to your genitals used to be something feminists opposed, it was considered misogynistic when a man did that to a woman...and yet here you are doing it to yourself of your own volition. 🤔

You're damaged, and you misinterpret that as liberated, then project your sexual immorality and lack of human worth onto others trying to reduce them down to their genitals like you. Misery really does want company, huh?

Incoming single word "reply" or urging to copulate.

Just a reminder that hedonists like you always die alone and miserable.

You know, that's an embarrassing statement coming from someone who said:


Have you ever considered therapy? You might even find a relationship where someone actually sees you as human if you can get over whatever made you this way.

Alternatively, enjoy being a cat mom.
People who have sex don't write like this
 
People who have sex don't write like this
People who let themselves get used by low quality men are sex obsessed.

Go to therapy

Ps: my husband satisfies me just fine. So your sex insult is moot. Considering that you’ve just admitted that your only value to men is offering them, that tells me you need to get a new hobby outside of collecting STDs. Maybe you should take up painting or hiking, perhaps.

Or cooking. Most quality men will overlook you being a whore if you know how to cook like Gordon Ramsay.
 
People who let themselves get used by low quality men are sex obsessed.

Go to therapy

Ps: my husband satisfies me just fine. So your sex insult is moot. Considering that you’ve just admitted that your only value to men is offering them, that tells me you need to get a new hobby outside of collecting STDs. Maybe you should take up painting or hiking, perhaps.
ok pickme
 
People who have sex don't write like this
Funny you'd say that, the only other people I've met online who are as sex obsessed as you, are incels.

:thinking:

Perhaps people with a healthy relationship with regards to the opposite sex, don't write like you? And now that I think about it, you telling people you assume are men online to "have sex" in the manner you do, is in a way just you telling men to go out and treat women like
warm wet holes to be used and discarded
which is kind of strange as you've said
i wish it weren't so but it is.
which is kind of giving out a mixed message, no? Like I said, you should get professional help.
 
Funny you'd say that, the only other people I've met online who are as sex obsessed as you, are incels.

:thinking:

Perhaps people with a healthy relationship with regards to the opposite sex, don't write like you? And now that I think about it, you telling people you assume are men online to "have sex" in the manner you do, is in a way just you telling men to go out and treat women like

which is kind of strange as you've said

which is kind of giving out a mixed message, no? Like I said, you should get professional help.
1631748158157.png
 
You realize that you aren't helping either yourself or the argument here?

Please shut the fuck up, you're just making everyone who actually does support abortion look like a dipshit.
I even explicitly stated like 2 pages back while directly quoting you that I'm only saying this because it pisses them off without fail.
I think the person(you) who can't process information is the dipshit
 
Back