The newest brand of abortion ban Is next-level cruelty

The problem with this anti-abortion law is that it's antithetical to civil tort laws. In order to be able to sue someone, you need to have been damaged in some way... you need to have standing. You can't just sue someone for the hell of it because you don't approve of their behavior or because you want to collect a reward.
 

Irwin said:
The problem with this anti-abortion law is that it's antithetical to civil tort laws. In order to be able to sue someone, you need to have been damaged in some way... you need to have standing. You can't just sue someone for the hell of it because you don't approve of their behavior or because you want to collect a reward.
Click to expand...
I agree, even though the statute purports to assign standing, I think that provision will not endure scrutiny.
 
Irwin said:
Yeah, I don't think you can "assign standing." :ROFLMAO:

I'd be willing to bet that nobody is going to win a lawsuit under this law. We shall see.
Click to expand...
Here is a Bloomberg article supporting our reasoning about Standing from lawyers, even from the TX AG: "In a court filing Tuesday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said the providers “have not shown that they will be personally harmed by a bill that may never be enforced against them by anyone.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...takes-effect-for-now-as-top-court-deliberates
 
The Supreme Court has ruled against abortion after 6 weeks but it isn't "against the poor" as some posts have suggested.

Adoption can be a win-win alternative to abortion for both the 6 week heartbeat and for the ever-hopeful adoptive parents who are yearning so very much for an opportunity to support and love a child, and the dream of having a family.

The birth mother doesn't even have to see the baby. And she doesn't have to carry a lifetime of regret or guilt...as does sometimes happen with abortion. She can feel good that she has given a loving family their dream of a lifetime.

The adoptive family pays for any and all expenses incurred during and after birth whether she's rich or poor...including therapist, medical bills, supplies, shelter, and all other needs. Often the birth mother receives more to help her afterwards as well, especially with postpartum depression.

Yes the birth mother may find this 9 months uncomfortable but she will be kept safe and nurtured by the many organizations out there who will provide for her and support her. Meanwhile, she will have the benefits mentioned above.

We all have life choices. But an education of her alternatives is also her right and may save her from a lifetime of emotional pain.
 
Last edited:
Ideally, yes, it should be left up to the woman and not the government...but it's more complicated as there is a silent voice to consider. And that's where the debate starts as to when life begins. The Supreme Court chose a beating heart at 6 weeks. Some choose life at the time of conception. Looks like the Supreme Court tried to find a point of compromise and that's what our votes are all about.
 
Lara, in this day and age well off parents who cannot have children are more likely to engage a surrogate mother and use invitro fertilisation techniques. I know one such mother who did exactly that. It's not that unwanted babies are scarce. It is because they want their own genetic baby,

The legislation may not be targeted at the poor and disadvantaged but these are the women who bear the brunt of this legislation. In the past they would give birth and then leave the baby on the convent door step (or worse), something that would haunt them for the rest of their lives. The well off would simply disappear for an interstate or overseas holiday and have a termination. Poor women often fell victim to backyard abortionists, the well off could afford the services of a respected gynecologist whose discretion could be relied upon.

I don't say that abortion is a good thing, but sometimes it is the least worst option available.
 
Lara said:
the debate starts as to when life begins
Click to expand...
That is a problem. I believe we would have a complete consensus that a baby born live and breathing is a new life. As you work back from there to conception the consensus falls apart. And I don't think many people's position on it will change on this, for lots of people its a fundamental belief.

It is for this reason, the lack of consensus and the improbability of getting to one that I think the government needs to stay of it and let people make decisions for themselves. No one should have someone else's beliefs or opinions, mine included, forced on them...
 
I understand Alligatorob (i like your username btw).

Warrigal, I'm aware of the popularity of invitro fertilization "in this day and age". I'm super happy for those who want their own genetic baby and have this available for them. Nevertheless, there are plenty of people who want to adopt a newborn baby. Approximately 3,000 newborn babies put up for adoption every year are adopted within the first month after birth in Texas alone. Even one life matters to me but I understand that we don't all agree on what constitutes the beginning of life.

Here's my source:
"In Texas alone, there are routinely around 5,000 – 6,000 children waiting to be adopted every year. At the Adoption Alliance the majority of those waiting to be who are adopted are aged from birth up to 2 years and the state of Texas roughly reflects the adoption figures reported by other states in that around 62% of babies put up for adoption are adopted within the first month after birth."
https://adoption-alliance.com/what-percentage-of-babies-put-up-for-adoption-are-actually-adopted/
 
Last edited:
The reason the government gets involved in this decision process is because the taxpayers are funding abortions right now. So even those who believe abortion is taking a life are having to be enablers. Am I right?
 
ohioboy said:
Here is a Bloomberg article supporting our reasoning about Standing from lawyers, even from the TX AG: "In a court filing Tuesday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said the providers “have not shown that they will be personally harmed by a bill that may never be enforced against them by anyone.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...takes-effect-for-now-as-top-court-deliberates
Click to expand...
The bill may never be enforced, but abortion providers have already stopped providing abortions after six weeks.
 
To add to my post #65... Yes, I'm right. American taxpayers, whether pro or con on abortion, pay 24% for abortions.
That's about 250,000 abortions a year. That's hard on those who believe abortions are taking a life. And that's why the government has to control the issue.

Without funding, abortion clinics would not be available...and that would cause shady clinics to be a horrible option as we all know. On the other hand those who believe that life starts at conception or at least at 6 weeks with the heartbeat, feel like enablers of epic ethic proportions. This is hard on everyone.

Forbes says:
"As best I can determine, taxpayers subsidize roughly 24% of all abortion costs in the U.S.....with 6.6% borne by federal taxpayers and the remaining 17.4% picked up by state taxpayers. If we apply the 24% figure to the total number of abortions, this is equivalent to taxpayers paying the full cost of 250,000 abortions a year, with about 70,000 financed by federal taxpayers and 180,000 financed by state taxpayers
 
Last edited:
Lara said:
The reason the government gets involved in this decision process is because the taxpayers are funding abortions right now. So even those who believe abortion is taking a life are having to be enablers. Am I right?
Click to expand...
I think so.

It is a tough question, if the government is going to pay for medical care picking and choosing can be a problem. But since this is such a heart felt belief of so many I think the best thing would be for the government to stop paying for abortions. A reasonable compromise.
 
I wonder what the suicide rate would be among women forced to carry a child conceived through rape or incest? I guarantee that many women who do carry to term under those circumstances will suffer debilitating long term psychiatric effects.
 
Shalimar, even one suicide is one too many. The mother's life comes first. If a woman feels too traumatized to be able to carry her baby to term then I understand completely and would be supportive of whatever her decision is in order to avoid her demise by suicide.

Alligator....I think you missed my posts 67 and 68.
Defunding abortions would trigger other serious problems. The ones who want an abortion, especially teenage girls and young women, will go anywhere to get one. Unsafe shady clinics will crop up everywhere. And when not monitored by a government agency, malpractice goes rampant which can kill both mother and baby .

Violations need enforcement.
But if gov't takes it over then pro-life people are forced to pay taxes to fund clinics to take what they believe to be...a Life. That's happening right now to the tune of 250,000 abortions a year. That weighs heavy on their conscience. No one wins. Thus the Supreme Court is trying to find a solution, a middle ground, that is fair for everyone. We all need to understand it's hard for everyone...and a dilemma of epic proportions.
 
There's only one fair and healthy solution, as I see it, for pregnant pro-choice women to have "complete control over their bodies" for their abortion choice, void of government control.......is for the rich pro-choice private sector to support the abortion clinics.

And that solution works for pro-lifers from being forced to pay for the abortions through their taxes which go against their belief that it's taking a life...

....The top 1% earners in the private sector who are pro-choice should step up to the plate and fund abortion clinics for their fellow American women.
 
Last edited:
Lara said:
....The top 1% earners in the private sector who are pro-choice should step up to the plate and fund abortion clinics for their fellow American women.
Click to expand...
If the government were to stop paying for abortions I am sure some of that would happen.
Lara said:
There's only one fair and healthy solution, as I see it, for pregnant pro-choice women to have "complete control over their bodies" for their abortion choice, void of government control...
Click to expand...
Where would you draw the line between conception and live birth? A very sticky question...

I think the Supreme Court is just as divided on this as we are...
 
I'm going to be honest, I don't know about abortion. On one hand, it is the woman's body. And quite frankly, unless you have a pregnant woman under 24/7 multiple camera surveillance, she can do what she wants with her body. And should an unwanted pregnancy alter the life of the woman? And on the other hand, it does seem that a human life is eradicated. I don't know the answer to this question. I only know that I'm happy not to make a decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top