Hey Hano was the one who got mad at me — StreetlightX

This isn't correct on a couple of levels — Hanover

Yeah, I see what you mean. How dare he!

Well at least the women of Texas have you to thank for -- what was it again?

Well at least the women of Texas have you to thank for -- what was it again? — Srap Tasmaner

Nothing, like anything anyone does here, which you know perfectly well, you posturing high-horse'd git.

This kind of low hanging rubbish ought to be beneath you. How disappointing it isn't.

Here's a quick shoot-out 21st Century solution. — Amity

This just scrolled by elsewhere ... :)

https://twitter.com/mmpadellan/status/1433416836960464898

These people are supposed to care about children? Nope, just immiserating women. — StreetlightX

Afghan women are immiserated to the degree that the child mortality rate is the highest in the world. Nothing expresses the sanctity of life and the love of children like the highest child mortality rate on the globe.

Always a pleasure. Cheers!

It provides no such relief for defendants, even if they win.

That's what I think I've been saying. It doesn't mean the defendant would have to pay the plaintiff's costs and fees if the plaintiff loses, though.

Since neither of them possess that key piece of information, neither can be blamed for their demands. They're both in the dark - expect some fumbling, stumbling, falls, cuts and bruises, the ongoing Texas circus show is just another way ignorance manifests itself. — TheMadFool

Well, one can insist that their demands, if they result in the adoption of laws, comport with the Constitution. That legal issue will remain as long as the Constitution is around regardless of whether souls exist. even if the Angels and Archangels, Thrones and Dominions, and all the Powers of Heaven proclaim that they do.

I assume Roe will be overturned eventually. A woman in Texas could still get a legal and safe abortion if that happened. She just has to collect the money for a bus ride to Buffalo.

Loathsome and disturbing but how was it contrived, allowed to pass - what was the process ? — Amity

Well-heeled and influential fanatics, convinced of the righteousness of their cause, will always find venal politicians who will do their bidding--whatever it may be--in return for their support.

You know what I'd really like to see???

I'd like these caring and law abiding Texans to also likewise take care of these children born out of necessity.

I mean, who's going to look after these children if they won't have a loving and caring mother or father?

Well, that may be the result if the pro-life folks and their politicians and judges are satisfied with "merely" over-turning Roe. It seems to me that the right-wing is increasing inclined to use government power to impose their will on us all, and it may want to flex its muscles.

Well, that may be the result if the pro-life folks and their politicians and judges are satisfied with "merely" over-turning Roe. It seems to me that the right-wing is increasing inclined to use government power to impose their will on us all, and it may want to flex its muscles. — Ciceronianus

Yeah. Native Americans on the east coast used Mayapple leaves to induce abortion. If you could fit that into your epic, that would bring some authentic North American flavor to it.

Also, this is a good book on the rise of rightism:

Wendy Brown book

I invite any and all to read Roe v. Wade and to present here what they think are any failures in that law so far as reason shows - unreason disallowed. I think it's a pretty good law. And if any think they have better, let them present it, and absent which, let them be silent and comply. — tim wood

I'm not sure if this is a real invitation or just hand-waving.

We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified, and must be considered against important state interests in regulation. . . .

In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes "compelling."
With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that, until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.
This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.
With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
Measured against these standards, Art. 1196 of the Texas Penal Code, in restricting legal abortions to those "procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother," sweeps too broadly. The statute makes no distinction between abortions performed early in pregnancy and those performed later, and it limits to a single reason, "saving" the mother's life, the legal justification for the procedure. The statute, therefore, cannot survive the constitutional attack made upon it here.
This conclusion makes it unnecessary for us to consider the additional challenge to the Texas statute asserted on grounds of vagueness. See United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. at 67-72.
XI
To summarize and to repeat:
1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
. . . — Roe v Wade

So a woman's right to choose hinges on "protecting fetal life after viability" and nothing more. The state's ability to regulate a woman's health is simply taken for granted so long as a desired course of action involves a greater risk of death than whatever the state prefers ("With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that, until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health.")

What you might notice in both of these lines of reasoning is that as medical knowledge changes and risks of birth or moments of viability changes, a woman's right to choose is expanded or contracted. "We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified, and must be considered against important state interests in regulation." So is Roe about choice? Hell no. It is about a balancing act between when the state can dictate paternalism for the woman and opening the door to forced birth the moment viability is pushed back to conception. It is a worthless case and people should be ashamed to hang their hats on it for anything other than pragmatic reasons (it allowed choice and so far no challenge has moved the viability needle back in time).

Well-heeled and influential fanatics, convinced of the righteousness of their cause, will always find venal politicians who will do their bidding--whatever it may be--in return for their support. — Ciceronianus

Yes.This much I know.
I want to know more details about this particular 'legal' process but I guess I can look elsewhere.

In the meantime:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/03/republicans-texas-abortion-right-democracy

The Texas abortion law that the rightwing supreme court just smiled upon, despite its violation of precedent, seethes with both violence and lies. The very language of the law is a lie, a familiar one in which six-week embryos are called fetuses and a heartbeat is attributed to the cluster of cells that is not yet a heart not yet powering a circulatory system.

Behind it are other lies, in which women have abortions because they are reckless, wanton and callous, rather than, in the great number of cases, because of the failure of birth control, or coercive sex, or medical problems, including threats to the health of the mother or a non-viable pregnancy, and financial problems, including responsibility for existing children...

It will lead women – particularly the undocumented, poor, the young, those under the thumbs of abusive spouses or families – to die of life-threatening pregnancies or illicit abortions or suicide out of despair. A vigilante who goes after a woman is willing to see her die.
...

What was the 6 January coup attempt but this practice writ large?

...Madison Cawthorn, the North Carolina freshman congressman who appeared onstage on 6 January to whip up the crowd, calls the rioters “political prisoners” and continues to lie about the outcome of the 2020 election, declaring: “If our election systems continue to be rigged, continue to be stolen, it’s going to lead to one place and that’s bloodshed.”

Cawthorne, like the Florida congressman Matt Gaetz, like Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh, whose votes set the Texas abortion law into action on Wednesday, has been accused of sexual misconduct.
...

If the US defends its democracy, such as it is, and protects the voting rights of all eligible adults, the right will continue to be a shrinking minority.
— Republicans seethe with violence and lies. Texas is part of a bigger war they’re waging

Final paragraph: A big 'If...'

From:
https://www.livescience.com/65501-fetal-heartbeat-at-6-weeks-explained.html

So far this year, 11 states have enacted 90 laws meant to restrict abortion — the most in a single year since the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling... 

But what exactly do we mean when we talk about a "fetal heartbeat" at six weeks of pregnancy? Although some people might picture a heart-shaped organ beating inside a fetus, this is not the case.

Rather, at six weeks of pregnancy, an ultrasound can detect "a little flutter in the area that will become the future heart of the baby," said Dr. Saima Aftab, medical director of the Fetal Care Center at Nicklaus Children's Hospital in Miami. This flutter happens because the group of cells that will become the future "pacemaker" of the heart gain the capacity to fire electrical signals, she said. — Livescience - fetal heartbeat explained

Roe v Wade isn't a law. As I understand it, that's the problem.

Republicans seethe with violence and lies. Texas is part of a bigger war they’re waging

For your erudition.

Already erudited :smile:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/588934

But you said it simpler.
Easier to see and click :100: :sparkle:

:up:

Afghan women are immiserated to the degree that the child mortality rate is the highest in the world. Nothing expresses the sanctity of life and the love of children like the highest child mortality rate on the globe. — praxis

Gosh that's terrible. Imagine if the US was running the place for the last twenty years.

Oh wait.

Since neither of them possess that key piece of information, neither can be blamed for their demands. They're both in the dark - expect some fumbling, stumbling, falls, cuts and bruises, the ongoing Texas circus show is just another way ignorance manifests itself.
— TheMadFool

Well, one can insist that their demands, if they result in the adoption of laws, comport with the Constitution. That legal issue will remain as long as the Constitution is around regardless of whether souls exist. even if the Angels and Archangels, Thrones and Dominions, and all the Powers of Heaven proclaim that they do. — Ciceronianus

The constitution can't overrule facts. If souls are real, the constitution be damned! The constitution, any constitution, must be in line with the truth, no? If not, we would be living in a fantasy world and our problems will multply and/or worsen. Sorry if this comes off as rude, it isn't intended to be.

Women are loosing ground on our own soil, we’re certainly not going to help empower them anywhere else.

No, no you're not. And besides, Afghanistan was clearly just practice for the US. Aspiration for the home front. Afghan women: American woman of the future.

Re: the domino effect of violence and lies; the wrecking ball of Trump's Big Lie.
The name Cawthorn keeps coming up.

As a follow-up and because I don't want to add to this thread or start another one:
I posted something in the 'Shoutbox'.
'Wake up, America !' - another Guardian article.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/589458

no you're not. And besides, Afghanistan was clearly just practice for the US. Aspiration for the home front. Afghan women: American woman of the future. — StreetlightX

Still doesn't make sense. It needs to be something like: Americans will apply what they learned from the Taliban to American women. But that doesn't make sense either. The US military has lots of women in it.

"The unborn" are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.

Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn. — Dave Barnhart (2018)

I have a feeling many females I know would look into moving if living in Texas.

The US military has lots of women in it. — frank

A quick google search says around 14%. In the top ranks only 7%. So better for cannon fodder than leadership, apparently.

Is that what you were? Cannon fodder?

I never served. My wife had a female student who enlisted and was deployed to Afghanistan. One night she was knocked unconscious and raped, most likely by an American soldier. Suffers permanent brain damage.

My wife had a female student who enlisted and was deployed to Afghanistan. One night she was knocked unconscious and raped, most likely by an American soldier. Suffers permanent brain damage. — praxis

I know of a similar case but Dubai, U.S. Air Force, fellow airman, no brain damage.

Everyone should go watch the movie Platoon. It is evidence of the fragility of democracy when Sgt. Elias is killed, leaving it to an airstrike on our own positions to create an opening for Chris to shoot Barnes. I’m just naïve enough to think our ranks are full of Sgt. Elias types. And that they all recognize the Barnes’ of the world as the Blue Falcons that they are. Perhaps I am like Big Harold in that regard.

If our society has failed to generate more Elias' than Barnes, we are fucked and don't deserve to survive.