• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Breaking: SCOTUS strikes down Texas abortion restriction

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
VRAMdemon said:
I wonder what a Zika epidemic in the US would do or is doing to popular opinion on abortion. Obviously a lot of pregnant women are not going to want to carry to term a fetus with catastrophic birth defects, and in fact abortion requests in Zika-affected countries are rapidly increasing. This is likely to tilt the abortion-seeking demographic in the US away from being so disproportionately low-income, since Zika can strike at any income level.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting perspective. I hadn't given it much thought, but if zika were to spread in any significant way to the US, there could be significant impact on the whole abortion debate.

I hope zika doesn't become widespread here in the US, but if it does, you're going to see a significant increase in abortions and abortion services. It's one thing to oppose abortions when you view them as relatively easily preventable with a tiny amount of responsible behavior, but when it's something you really have no control over that's a whole other ballgame.
 
Eli said:
Good.

The world just simply doesn't need unwanted children. Abortion is a medical tool to be used by modern society to better itself. Because unwanted children are bad; they are a net drag on society. Bringing a human being into this world should not be taken lightly. If someone is not ready, they need options.
Click to expand...

Every child a wanted child. And every unwanted child, dead.

Splendid.

Why on earth is this restricted to babies? On what possible grounds do you keep it from extending to adults you don't care for?

Going to the opposite extreme as prohibiting abortion, I'd be OK with needing a license to breed. Pregnant with no license? Forced abortion.
Click to expand...

Uh...

Not really a whole lot different from the right's version; forcing someone to have a baby simply because they became pregnant. Unless of course you invoke god, then it all makes sense.

How about some middle ground eh? Those who want to have babies can.. and those who don't want to, don't have to!
Click to expand...

No problem, as long as you don't kill anyone along the way.

Oh hang on. It turns out that's exactly the point of contention, and the source of the raging debate for the last 40 years, and that you completely managed to miss that.
 
Last edited:
Paratus said:
(BTW I meant to ask you if you guys did ok during the flooding last month. I seem to remember Rosenberg getting hammered)
Click to expand...

Thankfully I live about 5 miles from the river and away from all the flooding. Though some of my children's friends/family were affected.
 
VRAMdemon said:
I wonder what a Zika epidemic in the US would do or is doing to popular opinion on abortion. Obviously a lot of pregnant women are not going to want to carry to term a fetus with catastrophic birth defects, and in fact abortion requests in Zika-affected countries are rapidly increasing. This is likely to tilt the abortion-seeking demographic in the US away from being so disproportionately low-income, since Zika can strike at any income level.
Click to expand...

Smart observation. I bet it would change the birth control discussion too, especially where they can be bought and how much or would free suddenly become more tolerable?
 
Atreus21 said:
No problem, as long as you don't kill anyone along the way.

Oh hang on. It turns out that's exactly the point of contention, and the source of the raging debate for the last 40 years, and that you completely managed to miss that.
Click to expand...

That's what happens when a lump of cells is mistakenly defined as a person.
 
IANAL, but wondering if anyone knows this:

If Texas' unconstitutional laws prevented a woman from having a baby, and she now has that baby, would she be eligible to sue the state for damages, in this case, the cost of raising a child to age 18 + college expenses?

If so, perhaps a few such lawsuits may have an effect of getting those making the laws, and those supporting such lawmakers to finally have some consequences to such actions, and now have motivation to stop violating people's Constitutional rights? As it is, they can make a new law tomorrow which will result in many women not being able to get an abortion, knowing that the new law will get tossed out by SCOTUS in, ohh, 3 or 4 years, at which point, repeat. The only thing I could find was that a private suit couldn't seek retroactive relief from financial damages - but in this case, the damages would be ongoing. From what I understand, Congress would also have to get involved in such a case - but is it possible (not including the current Congressional make-up)?
 
Last edited:
DrPizza said:
IANAL, but wondering if anyone knows this:

If Texas' unconstitutional laws prevented a woman from having a baby, and she now has that baby, would she be eligible to sue the state for damages, in this case, the cost of raising a child to age 18 + college expenses?

If so, perhaps a few such lawsuits may have an effect of getting those making the laws, and those supporting such lawmakers to finally have some consequences to such actions, and now have motivation to stop violating people's Constitutional rights? As it is, they can make a new law tomorrow which will result in many women not being able to get an abortion, knowing that the new law will get tossed out by SCOTUS in, ohh, 3 or 4 years, at which point, repeat.
Click to expand...

This is why we need Ironwing's Amendment to every state constitution: If a law is found to be un-Constitutional, the legislators who voted for it would be found financially liable for all of the state's costs in implementing/defending the law and for damages to affected parties. Pols would think twice before using legislation as a vehicle for grandstanding.
 
IronWing said:
This is why we need Ironwing's Amendment to every state constitution: If a law is found to be un-Constitutional, the legislators who voted for it would be found financially liable for all of the state's costs in implementing/defending the law and for damages to affected parties. Pols would think twice before using legislation as a vehicle for grandstanding.
Click to expand...
<like>
 
IronWing said:
This is why we need Ironwing's Amendment to every state constitution: If a law is found to be un-Constitutional, the legislators who voted for it would be found financially liable for all of the state's costs in implementing/defending the law and for damages to affected parties. Pols would think twice before using legislation as a vehicle for grandstanding.
Click to expand...
What about presidents who issue unconstitutional executive actions?
 
DrPizza said:
IANAL, but wondering if anyone knows this:

If Texas' unconstitutional laws prevented a woman from having a baby, and she now has that baby, would she be eligible to sue the state for damages, in this case, the cost of raising a child to age 18 + college expenses?

If so, perhaps a few such lawsuits may have an effect of getting those making the laws, and those supporting such lawmakers to finally have some consequences to such actions, and now have motivation to stop violating people's Constitutional rights? As it is, they can make a new law tomorrow which will result in many women not being able to get an abortion, knowing that the new law will get tossed out by SCOTUS in, ohh, 3 or 4 years, at which point, repeat. The only thing I could find was that a private suit couldn't seek retroactive relief from financial damages - but in this case, the damages would be ongoing. From what I understand, Congress would also have to get involved in such a case - but is it possible (not including the current Congressional make-up)?
Click to expand...

would be an interesting section 1983 case



s0me0nesmind1 said:
While I agree with SCOTUS, I have to ask... Why do Hospitals (which would qualify under this BS law) not do abortions? It's certainly a medical procedure. They definitely do child birth... why not abortion?

And don't get me wrong, I understand a lot of hospitals are owned by religious nut-jobs, but it still seems odd that none of them (to my knowledge) do it.
Click to expand...

cost. abortion procedures don't need hospital facilities and all the regulatory compliance that goes along with it.
 
Last edited:
buckshot24 said:
What about presidents who issue unconstitutional executive actions?
Click to expand...

Just doing your usual thing, huh?

1366758338483-derail.jpg
 
IronWing said:
Seems reasonable that if a pol steps outside the job description that they should be personally liable for their actions.
Click to expand...

That's bullshit. No matter how well a politician might do their job there would be well financed suits from a variety of back biters on a continuous basis. The only people who'd ever become politicians would be crazy. We already have plenty of that.
 
Atreus21 said:
Every child a wanted child. And every unwanted child, dead.

Splendid.

Why on earth is this restricted to babies? On what possible grounds do you keep it from extending to adults you don't care for?
Click to expand...

Ok, I am going to correct your definition for you. I am doing this so you can't claim ignorance next time around. If you use the term again with respect to abortion, you will be lying BY DEFINITION. If you believe lying for Jesus is morally acceptable, (which you will), you should understand that this is one of the many reasons Christianity is DYING in 1st world nations. Moral hypocrisy is not a recipe for winning souls to your cause.

Ok, please read carefully now. This is the definition of BABY:

ba·by
&#712;b&#257;b&#275;/
noun



noun: baby; plural noun: babies
  1. 1.
    a very young child, especially one newly or recently born.
    "his wife's just had a baby"
    synonyms:infant, newborn, child, tot, little one; More



You are using the term baby interchangeably with FETUS or EMBRYO. That is unacceptable. Please use the correct term from now on or I will accuse you of moral hypocrisy and lying each and every time you do so.
 
Last edited:
bshole said:
You are using the term baby interchangeably with FETUS or EMBRYO. That is unacceptable. Please use the correct term from now on or I will accuse you of moral hypocrisy and lying each and every time you do so.
Click to expand...
What do you call the "thing" in the womb 1 day before the due date?
 
buckshot24 said:
What do you call the "thing" in the womb 1 day before the due date?
Click to expand...

He doesn't care, his moral core is dead as the fetus that was inside previously. When people on their side argue about how it's being "responsible" for women to have abortions you know that it's not even worth having the conversation with them.
 
glenn1 said:
He doesn't care, his moral core is dead as the fetus that was inside previously. When people on their side argue about how it's being "responsible" for women to have abortions you know that it's not even worth having the conversation with them.
Click to expand...

Thank you Glen. I mean that. You at least used the correct term. That makes you the moral superior of both Bucky and Artreus. You at least retained your honesty while still opposing abortion. That is an extremely RARE commodity within the pro-life movement ---- one of the most dishonest and dishonorable movements in American history (as evidenced by the multiple abortion clinic bombings, doctor shootings, and countless other acts of menace and bullying).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top