Jump to content

Official Thread for Abortion Demagoguery

bad_teammate

By bad_teammate
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Bama Chick
Bama Chick

No. Fuck off with that. Not every abortion is about trauma and tragedy and using that framing plays into the christofascist’s hands. Women are humans. Humans have bodily autonomy. Ergo, women have b

Brisketexan
Brisketexan

I do love this argument. I really do. It’s as convenient a way to label yourself a drooling moron as exists, outside of towing around a giant neon “I’M A MORON” sign. No, they didn’t teach us that

hayden_horn
hayden_horn

of course you do. thing is, i would support that. if they choose that. and the real thing is, i'm actually pro life. both my sons were very premature, and had they been born in the 80s, they

Posted Images

notre dame joe

notre dame joe 172

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Brisketexan said:


I do love this argument. I really do. It’s as convenient a way to label yourself a drooling moron as exists, outside of towing around a giant neon “I’M A MORON” sign.

No, they didn’t teach us that in law school. Instead, we covered things that are actually in the Constitution, like the 9th amendment, which makes clear something that was already true before the BOR was even passed: the constitution doesn’t grant the people any rights. That’s right, it doesn’t GRANT any right. Rather, it grants certain powers and roles, by the consent of the states and the people, to the government.

Your interpretation, and those of the other “originalists,” voids the 9th Amendment:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Rights reside within the people. Within - dare I say - their corporeal bodies themselves. My wife’s right to control her body is inherent, timeless, and is not granted by the government and, as the 9th amendment so plainly tells us, not denied by the constitution’s other rights.

Quite plainly, rights that are NOT enumerated in the constitution are no less inviolable than those that are. But your ilk doesn’t know that, because the constitution isn’t a charter for the people, it is a weapon for a single political class, most lethal when it is completely misused, contrary to its plain language admonishing you assholes not to do what you just did.

You and the “originalists” are not constitutionalists at all. You are proof texters, finding snippets you love out of context (“shall not be infringed!”), and ignoring the remainder. You’re anti-American, pursuing an anti-American dream and vision, at the expense - likely fatal - of this nation.

Wow an actual point made a long side of the personal insults.  You win the cloak room equivalent of the big 12 north.

 

So you so you think the 9th amendment created or protected a right to have an abortion.  Do you think the supreme Court just missed that for the first 150 years and only rediscovered it in 1973? 

  • Fuck You 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 27427

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, notre dame joe said:

Wow an actual point made a long side of the personal insults.  You win the cloak room equivalent of the big 12 north.

 

So you so you think the 9th amendment created or protected a right to have an abortion.  Do you think the supreme Court just missed that for the first 150 years and only rediscovered it in 1973? 

What case before Roe came before the court?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104604

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
13 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

Wow an actual point made a long side of the personal insults.  You win the cloak room equivalent of the big 12 north.

 

So you so you think the 9th amendment created or protected a right to have an abortion.  Do you think the supreme Court just missed that for the first 150 years and only rediscovered it in 1973? 

Does the Supreme Court, as a creature of the society it serves and is part of, carrying many of that society's same flaws, sometimes miss that certain rights are inherent in all people, and then have to later correct itself?

Yes.  See Plessy v. Ferguson leading to Brown v. Board of Education (the point that our own senior senator tried to make, but was too fucking inept to do, and too fucking dumb to realize he had it ass-backwards), taking a case that said that an entire racial group actually didn't have true equal rights, and correcting the fuck out of that idiocy.  Oh, and if you actually want to look at "longstanding history" (the apparent standard that Alito would have us apply), the overwhelming, almost completely unidirectional path of history, has been that society is slow to recognize and follow rights for "out" groups, but eventually does so.

What we have never, ever seen -- from SCOTUS and frankly, in Western history (with notable exceptions, which are both relevant and analogous here -- I'll get to those) -- is a lurch in the opposite direction, voiding a right that has been recognized for a long-ass time (two generations).  We HAVE seen western societies lurch that direction before.  Fascist Italy.  Nazi Germany.  Various medieval governments and entities that afforded jews some protections, and then withdrew them and persecuted the fuck out of jews again when it was politically expedient.  In the class of "nations/societies that have had a right for an out/marginalized group, but then revoked that right," we are in super ultra mega shitty company.

And underneath ALL of this is the actual right that got revoked.  The right to privacy as it relates to bodily autonomy.  Clarence Thomas said they are coming for the right to choose contraception, the right to engage in private, consensual sex with another adult regardless of gender and the nature of the act, and the right to obtain the benefits of state-sanctioned marriage without regard to the gender of the participant (fucking HYSTERICAL that he left out the 4th member of that group of cases, Loving, which acknowledged the right to his own interracial marriage....don't worry, Clarence, they'll come for that, too).  He's dead right, and I credit him for his honesty, even if it came about because he is a dumbass as opposed to being ethical and honorable.  You and your pals are too fucking stupid to realize what Dobbs actually does.  Dobbs is only facially about abortion.  It is really about the foundational issue that had to be decided before the matter of abortion could be reached: you do not have any constitutional right to control your own body.  Because we're a hung-up, retrograde society, we think that only relates to matters revolving around sex (contraception, buttfucking, gay marriage).  But it's so, so, so much more than that.

Congratulations, conservatives.....you got what you wanted.  And all it does is give us a choice of future hellscapes.  Do you want the conservative one, where it's illegal to have any sort of sex except with your opposite gender spouse, in certain positions, with no contraceptives allowed?  Or do you want the insane, ultra-control "progressive" one, where you'll be longing for the days that all that was imposed were public mask mandates and vaccine passes?  Pick, but you no longer get to vote for "none of the above," because your body is no longer yours.  It belongs to whichever power faction happens to have control of the government at any given time.  Which obviates the whole fucking point of rights, which are supposed to be bedrock inviolable constants.

Congratulations.  You did it.

you-arrogant-ass-the-hunt-for-red-octobe

 

  • Hook 'Em 17
  • Like 6
  • Rage+1 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Willfully Horn

Willfully Horn 7913

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Does the Supreme Court, as a creature of the society it serves and is part of, carrying many of that society's same flaws, sometimes miss that certain rights are inherent in all people, and then have to later correct itself?

Yes.  See Plessy v. Ferguson leading to Brown v. Board of Education (the point that our own senior senator tried to make, but was too fucking inept to do, and too fucking dumb to realize he had it ass-backwards), taking a case that said that an entire racial group actually didn't have true equal rights, and correcting the fuck out of that idiocy.  Oh, and if you actually want to look at "longstanding history" (the apparent standard that Alito would have us apply), the overwhelming, almost completely unidirectional path of history, has been that society is slow to recognize and follow rights for "out" groups, but eventually does so.

What we have never, ever seen -- from SCOTUS and frankly, in Western history (with notable exceptions, which are both relevant and analogous here -- I'll get to those) -- is a lurch in the opposite direction, voiding a right that has been recognized for a long-ass time (two generations).  We HAVE seen western societies lurch that direction before.  Fascist Italy.  Nazi Germany.  Various medieval governments and entities that afforded jews some protections, and then withdrew them and persecuted the fuck out of jews again when it was politically expedient.  In the class of "nations/societies that have had a right for an out/marginalized group, but then revoked that right," we are in super ultra mega shitty company.

And underneath ALL of this is the actual right that got revoked.  The right to privacy as it relates to bodily autonomy.  Clarence Thomas said they are coming for the right to choose contraception, the right to engage in private, consensual sex with another adult regardless of gender and the nature of the act, and the right to obtain the benefits of state-sanctioned marriage without regard to the gender of the participant (fucking HYSTERICAL that he left out the 4th member of that group of cases, Loving, which acknowledged the right to his own interracial marriage....don't worry, Clarence, they'll come for that, too).  He's dead right, and I credit him for his honesty, even if it came about because he is a dumbass as opposed to being ethical and honorable.  You and your pals are too fucking stupid to realize what Dobbs actually does.  Dobbs is only facially about abortion.  It is really about the foundational issue that had to be decided before the matter of abortion could be reached: you do not have any constitutional right to control your own body.  Because we're a hung-up, retrograde society, we think that only relates to matters revolving around sex (contraception, buttfucking, gay marriage).  But it's so, so, so much more than that.

Congratulations, conservatives.....you got what you wanted.  And all it does is give us a choice of future hellscapes.  Do you want the conservative one, where it's illegal to have any sort of sex except with your opposite gender spouse, in certain positions, with no contraceptives allowed?  Or do you want the insane, ultra-control "progressive" one, where you'll be longing for the days that all that was imposed were public mask mandates and vaccine passes?  Pick, but you no longer get to vote for "none of the above," because your body is no longer yours.  It belongs to whichever power faction happens to have control of the government at any given time.  Which obviates the whole fucking point of rights, which are supposed to be bedrock inviolable constants.

Congratulations.  You did it.

you-arrogant-ass-the-hunt-for-red-octobe

 

 

image.jpeg

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Okie State

Okie State 3788

Posted
Posted
Does the Supreme Court, as a creature of the society it serves and is part of, carrying many of that society's same flaws, sometimes miss that certain rights are inherent in all people, and then have to later correct itself?
Yes.  See Plessy v. Ferguson leading to Brown v. Board of Education (the point that our own senior senator tried to make, but was too fucking inept to do, and too fucking dumb to realize he had it ass-backwards), taking a case that said that an entire racial group actually didn't have true equal rights, and correcting the fuck out of that idiocy.  Oh, and if you actually want to look at "longstanding history" (the apparent standard that Alito would have us apply), the overwhelming, almost completely unidirectional path of history, has been that society is slow to recognize and follow rights for "out" groups, but eventually does so.
What we have never, ever seen -- from SCOTUS and frankly, in Western history (with notable exceptions, which are both relevant and analogous here -- I'll get to those) -- is a lurch in the opposite direction, voiding a right that has been recognized for a long-ass time (two generations).  We HAVE seen western societies lurch that direction before.  Fascist Italy.  Nazi Germany.  Various medieval governments and entities that afforded jews some protections, and then withdrew them and persecuted the fuck out of jews again when it was politically expedient.  In the class of "nations/societies that have had a right for an out/marginalized group, but then revoked that right," we are in super ultra mega shitty company.
And underneath ALL of this is the actual right that got revoked.  The right to privacy as it relates to bodily autonomy.  Clarence Thomas said they are coming for the right to choose contraception, the right to engage in private, consensual sex with another adult regardless of gender and the nature of the act, and the right to obtain the benefits of state-sanctioned marriage without regard to the gender of the participant (fucking HYSTERICAL that he left out the 4th member of that group of cases, Loving, which acknowledged the right to his own interracial marriage....don't worry, Clarence, they'll come for that, too).  He's dead right, and I credit him for his honesty, even if it came about because he is a dumbass as opposed to being ethical and honorable.  You and your pals are too fucking stupid to realize what Dobbs actually does.  Dobbs is only facially about abortion.  It is really about the foundational issue that had to be decided before the matter of abortion could be reached: you do not have any constitutional right to control your own body.  Because we're a hung-up, retrograde society, we think that only relates to matters revolving around sex (contraception, buttfucking, gay marriage).  But it's so, so, so much more than that.
Congratulations, conservatives.....you got what you wanted.  And all it does is give us a choice of future hellscapes.  Do you want the conservative one, where it's illegal to have any sort of sex except with your opposite gender spouse, in certain positions, with no contraceptives allowed?  Or do you want the insane, ultra-control "progressive" one, where you'll be longing for the days that all that was imposed were public mask mandates and vaccine passes?  Pick, but you no longer get to vote for "none of the above," because your body is no longer yours.  It belongs to whichever power faction happens to have control of the government at any given time.  Which obviates the whole fucking point of rights, which are supposed to be bedrock inviolable constants.
Congratulations.  You did it.
you-arrogant-ass-the-hunt-for-red-october.gif
 
Got damn Brisket has had some solid posts on this thread. Well done you crazy bastard.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Caponata

Caponata 151

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, Hmbre97 said:

Pussy is undefeated. Women should just stop fucking dudes who vote for Republicans. See how quick that shit gets fixed when the only women who will fuck you are these broads.

2640.jpg?width=1200&height=1200&quality=

That is unless silent/awkward partially-clothed missionary is your thing...

Screenshot_20220626-200829_Chrome.thumb.jpg.11368b9a47b633ef4f97b5ec726066b2.jpg

Screenshot_20220626-201310_Chrome.jpg

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Irwin F Fletcher

Irwin F Fletcher 3550

Posted
Posted
Does the Supreme Court, as a creature of the society it serves and is part of, carrying many of that society's same flaws, sometimes miss that certain rights are inherent in all people, and then have to later correct itself?
Yes.  See Plessy v. Ferguson leading to Brown v. Board of Education (the point that our own senior senator tried to make, but was too fucking inept to do, and too fucking dumb to realize he had it ass-backwards), taking a case that said that an entire racial group actually didn't have true equal rights, and correcting the fuck out of that idiocy.  Oh, and if you actually want to look at "longstanding history" (the apparent standard that Alito would have us apply), the overwhelming, almost completely unidirectional path of history, has been that society is slow to recognize and follow rights for "out" groups, but eventually does so.
What we have never, ever seen -- from SCOTUS and frankly, in Western history (with notable exceptions, which are both relevant and analogous here -- I'll get to those) -- is a lurch in the opposite direction, voiding a right that has been recognized for a long-ass time (two generations).  We HAVE seen western societies lurch that direction before.  Fascist Italy.  Nazi Germany.  Various medieval governments and entities that afforded jews some protections, and then withdrew them and persecuted the fuck out of jews again when it was politically expedient.  In the class of "nations/societies that have had a right for an out/marginalized group, but then revoked that right," we are in super ultra mega shitty company.
And underneath ALL of this is the actual right that got revoked.  The right to privacy as it relates to bodily autonomy.  Clarence Thomas said they are coming for the right to choose contraception, the right to engage in private, consensual sex with another adult regardless of gender and the nature of the act, and the right to obtain the benefits of state-sanctioned marriage without regard to the gender of the participant (fucking HYSTERICAL that he left out the 4th member of that group of cases, Loving, which acknowledged the right to his own interracial marriage....don't worry, Clarence, they'll come for that, too).  He's dead right, and I credit him for his honesty, even if it came about because he is a dumbass as opposed to being ethical and honorable.  You and your pals are too fucking stupid to realize what Dobbs actually does.  Dobbs is only facially about abortion.  It is really about the foundational issue that had to be decided before the matter of abortion could be reached: you do not have any constitutional right to control your own body.  Because we're a hung-up, retrograde society, we think that only relates to matters revolving around sex (contraception, buttfucking, gay marriage).  But it's so, so, so much more than that.
Congratulations, conservatives.....you got what you wanted.  And all it does is give us a choice of future hellscapes.  Do you want the conservative one, where it's illegal to have any sort of sex except with your opposite gender spouse, in certain positions, with no contraceptives allowed?  Or do you want the insane, ultra-control "progressive" one, where you'll be longing for the days that all that was imposed were public mask mandates and vaccine passes?  Pick, but you no longer get to vote for "none of the above," because your body is no longer yours.  It belongs to whichever power faction happens to have control of the government at any given time.  Which obviates the whole fucking point of rights, which are supposed to be bedrock inviolable constants.
Congratulations.  You did it.
you-arrogant-ass-the-hunt-for-red-october.gif
 
Fucking Hell! Thank you!

"Shit fire and save the matches!"........next rounds on me at the ledge bar.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31272

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

Wow an actual point made a long side of the personal insults.  You win the cloak room equivalent of the big 12 north.

 

So you so you think the 9th amendment created or protected a right to have an abortion.  Do you think the supreme Court just missed that for the first 150 years and only rediscovered it in 1973? 

For one thing, it had never been raised.  Also, the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, which applied the Bill of Rights (that's the First through 10th Amendments, also notably the Second Amendment, see below) to the states, was essential to Roe v. Wade.

Probably also worth noting that the personal right to bear arms, which also required incorporation against the states by the 14th Amendment, was not established until 2008.

Ya big dummy.  Just stop.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Asithappens

Asithappens 974

Posted
Posted

Don't have much to say other than a general comment that both the GOP and christianity are basically toxic parodies of what they once were. Sad.

And, imo, people like the sanctimonious religious hypocrites here absolutely do NOT care about you, or your baby. They only care about their image. They are not your friends.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31272

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)

I'm going to add a sidenote to brisket's worthy posting.

For all of the flaws of the Constitution of the United States of America, and there are many of both form and substance, it is the defining document of the most progressive, classically liberal country and society of its time, if not in history to that date.  And, it has underlaid the continued existence of that country for nearly 250 years, while other attempts (notably France) have failed repeatedly in that time span (on their fifth attempt, IIRC).

I don't believe the founding fathers would have objected much to it being interpreted and applied to maintain that status, despite their having provided a mechanism for amending it.  Indeed, the Ninth Amendment, as brisket notes, is a hoary old version of "including without limitation," meaning just because it's not listed doesn't mean it doesn't exist and the Constitution doesn't recognize it and protect it.  A prime example being judicial review, which is not provided for by the words of the document and not much objected to by the fathers, who lived at its creation "from whole cloth" by the court.

Sure, you can go too far with "substantive due process" and digging into the "vast cornucopia of rights" (h/t Lino A. Graglia), but you can also go too far with restrictive, literal readings of the document, which was pretty clearly cautioned against by the Ninth Amendment.  Anyone who claims that one interpretive mode or philosophy is correct to the exclusion of others is a naive fool.  You don't get that with lesser documents such as statutes and contracts, either.

Try to convince me that the people who wrote "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" would object to further refinement of a right of personal privacy and autonomy in terms of electing medical procedures free from government interference.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hpslugga

hpslugga 4044

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

For all of the flaws of the Constitution of the United States of America, and there are many of both form and substance, it is the defining document of the most progressive, classically liberal country and society of its time, if not in history to that date.  And, it has underlaid the continued existence of that country for nearly 250 years, while other attempts (notably France) have failed repeatedly in that time span (on their fifth attempt, IIRC).

It must also be said that in addition to what you’ve already pointed to re: the Constitution, it is also the world’s first secular Constitution. Religious people don’t like to hear that. They like to thunder loudly the phrase “endowed by their creator,” wholly ignoring that 1) that line is deliberately vague and in no way champions the kind of theocracy these modern day losers want to live in and 2) it’s not even in the Constitution and whoever taught them to say that was teaching them how to play sleight of hand. 

The spirit of this Dobbs ruling absolutely stinks of a fundamental misunderstanding of one particular religious text. That can never be the basis of law here, nor can it be the basis of the laws they intend to pervert and distort if/when they actually do revisit the aforementioned bodily autonomy cases. 

21 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't believe the founding fathers would have objected much to it being interpreted and applied to maintain that status, despite their having provided a mechanism for amending it.  Indeed, the Ninth Amendment, as brisket notes, is a hoary old version of "including without limitation," meaning just because it's not listed doesn't mean it doesn't exist and the Constitution doesn't recognize it and protect it.

I mean just I would invite those who are masturbating over this Dobbs ruling to read through amendments 1-8 and tell me that’s not the case. In each one, as I read them, it’s basically saying because we’re already entitled to do X, the government cannot do Y. And since that’s the case, yeah, the constitution bears no burden to enumerate what citizens can or cannot do. That’s what you lawyers like to refer to as “beyond the scope.”

21 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Try to convince me that the people who wrote "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" would object to further refinement of a right of personal privacy and autonomy in terms of electing medical procedures free from government interference.

Geez talk about a losing proposition.

And those old articles from that Tweet should tell you that on the abortion issue in particular, they no doubt would have sided with the majority in Roe. They certainly would have chastised White’s asinine dissent to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lemonlime

lemonlime 5503

Posted
Posted

The problem's not the Constitution.  It's a piece of paper.  And only has as much value as the people in charge give it.  The people currently in charge are treating it like toilet paper, while being cheered on by a few and ignored by many, who are receiving a steady diet of empty rage on gas prices, transgender athletes, and drag queen story hour.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45494

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, lemonlime said:

The problem's not the Constitution.  It's a piece of paper.  And only has as much value as the people in charge give it.  The people currently in charge are treating it like toilet paper, while being cheered on by a few and ignored by many, who are receiving a steady diet of empty rage on gas prices, transgender athletes, and drag queen story hour.

The same can be said for our overall democracy.  We've learned very quickly and harshly that it only works when people want it to work.  It crumbles easily with bad actors.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29240

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Here’s the wake up call. Get ready for criminalized pregnancy where every miscarriage can come with jail time. This isn’t just about access to abortion. 

Ana will be along shortly to remind us that this will actually be liberals' fault.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9935

Posted
Posted

6D90BC92-C71A-412C-BC9C-17A1FB0E1CF9.jpeg.969571a6a1cdd4ffa23d107a1e7284eb.jpeg

Ginny Stroud: “One more thing before you celebrate America on July 4th, the modern anti-abortion movement was started by a racist marketer who wanted to create a movement that would assure an all-white Bob Jones University in perpetuity. He knew he couldn’t rally fundamentalists on overt racism, so he created a “moral majority” scam that self-righteous fundies lapped up.
 

Prior to the marketing ploy, conservative Protestant churches believed abortion was a personal decision between a believer and God - protected from government interference.”

“When the Roe decision was handed down, W. A. Criswell, the Southern Baptist Convention’s former president and pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas—also one of the most famous fundamentalists of the 20th century—was pleased: “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” he said, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”

The more you know . . .

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133/
 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Make em eat Taco Bell

Make em eat Taco Bell 1549

Posted
Posted

identify the state with these somewhat liberal abortion guidelines:

 

Abortion is legal in cases of risk to a woman’s life, fetal impairment, or to protect her physical and mental health. Pregnancy arising from incest or rape also qualify for a legal abortion under the mental health exemption. The fetus must be less than four months old, and if longer, requires a panel of approved specialists to declare that the pregnancy will result in the death of the woman or serious damage to her health. Any approved abortion requires consent from three physicians as well as the patient and her partner. If an abortion is performed on a woman for any other reason, the violator may be required to pay restitution to the unborn child's family. Laws explicitly deny abortion to families who fear financial instability or an inability to provide the child with education.The selling of pills which are used for the process of abortion is illegal and has resulted in arrest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Serak The Preparer

Serak The Preparer 3424

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Make em eat Taco Bell said:

identify the state with these somewhat liberal abortion guidelines:

 

Abortion is legal in cases of risk to a woman’s life, fetal impairment, or to protect her physical and mental health. Pregnancy arising from incest or rape also qualify for a legal abortion under the mental health exemption. The fetus must be less than four months old, and if longer, requires a panel of approved specialists to declare that the pregnancy will result in the death of the woman or serious damage to her health. Any approved abortion requires consent from three physicians as well as the patient and her partner. If an abortion is performed on a woman for any other reason, the violator may be required to pay restitution to the unborn child's family. Laws explicitly deny abortion to families who fear financial instability or an inability to provide the child with education.The selling of pills which are used for the process of abortion is illegal and has resulted in arrest.

Why don't you do that for us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Make em eat Taco Bell

Make em eat Taco Bell 1549

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Make em eat Taco Bell said:

identify the state with these somewhat liberal abortion guidelines:

 

Abortion is legal in cases of risk to a woman’s life, fetal impairment, or to protect her physical and mental health. Pregnancy arising from incest or rape also qualify for a legal abortion under the mental health exemption. The fetus must be less than four months old, and if longer, requires a panel of approved specialists to declare that the pregnancy will result in the death of the woman or serious damage to her health. Any approved abortion requires consent from three physicians as well as the patient and her partner. If an abortion is performed on a woman for any other reason, the violator may be required to pay restitution to the unborn child's family. Laws explicitly deny abortion to families who fear financial instability or an inability to provide the child with education.The selling of pills which are used for the process of abortion is illegal and has resulted in arrest.

 

1 hour ago, Serak The Preparer said:

Why don't you do that for us?

that state is the liberal bastion called "Saudi Arabia"

_57878429_57868952.jpg

*meaning several US states are to the right of Saudi society.  

Edited by Make em eat Taco Bell
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...