Woman suing Texas over abortion ban vomits on the stand in emotional reaction during dramatic hearing
Woman suing Texas over abortion ban vomits on the stand in emotional reaction during dramatic hearing
Three plaintiffs testified about the trauma they experienced carrying nonviable pregnancies.
Three plaintiffs testified about the trauma they experienced carrying nonviable pregnancies.
You're viewing part of a thread.
it's not alive until it is born and can survive outside the womb. Nice logical leaps though.
You believe that.
Many don't.
Does that make them enslavers to women?
Say they can survive outside the womb at 6 months. That's the point that you say 'okay, no more killing this being'?
They can survive outside the womb at 6 months with the right kind of medical care (very high mortality rate, though) and the previous cutoff for abortion was around 5 months, so, yeah I guess someone did say that very thing at some point.
I'm asking you, we don't need to get into the sticks, just say the day of viability is at the 6 month mark. That's the exact point you would say "okay, no more killing this being"?
It should be to doctors to establish viability of fetuses, not to random people on the internet.
it's a hypothetical, do you know what a hypothetical is?
Which was the point of Roe V Wade. Abortions were cut off at viability.
Yeah, unfortunately, I think it's just bad law. I think it'd be okay legislatively, which is why it's sooooo incredibly odd that the democrats didn't codify RvW despite having many many many opportunities. But ultimately, I think it was a terribly ruled case that I think the SC was right to overturn. Fun fact, RBG also shares my belief.
They didn't actually have so many opportunities. Yes, it's terrible that it isn't enshrined in law, but no. Don't blame Democrats when they didn't have near as much chance as everyone claims.
They didn't actually have so many opportunities. Yes, it's terrible that it isn't enshrined in law, but no. Don't blame Democrats when they didn't have near as much chance as everyone claims.
They had dozens of opportunities..
Don’t blame Democrats when they didn’t have near as much chance as everyone claims.
Yes they did. They didn't so idiots would keep voting for them and to say that your rights are 'under attack'
Have you heard of Stockholm syndrome? That's where you're at.
Where are the dozens of times that Democrats have had the majority Senate, House, and the presidency? You said specifically dozens, therefore there must have been dozens of democratic presidents who had a full democratic Congress. Who were all of these presidents?
1977-1979 under jimmy carter 1993-1995 under bill clinton 2007-2011 under Obama
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses
You said specifically dozens, therefore there must have been dozens of democratic presidents who had a full democratic Congress.
Not necessarily, it could be 10 times over 2 years.
Regardless, I've listed at least 12 years that democrats had a president and majorities in senate and congress - yet, not once did they enshrine what you argue is a human right. Either they didn't think it's a human right, they didn't want to codify it, or it's just not high on their priority list. They've had plenty of opportunities, you only got the dems to blame.
I was unaware that the entirety of Obama's had a democratic majority both houses of Congress. Gonna check into that along with the other presidents. It would be pretty incredible for all three presidents to have a democratic majority in both houses for the whole presidency.
They didn't actually have so many opportunities. Yes, it's terrible that it isn't enshrined in law, but no. Don't blame Democrats when they didn't have near as much chance as everyone claims.