Roe v Wade struck down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If my husband isn't legally obligated to donate ANY organ to our children to keep them alive (kidney, blood, liver, etc) then why should i donate my entire BODY to keep them alive when they are INSIDE MY BODY?

It makes no sense?
Why keep a FETUS alive at all costs, but a child born and needs medical care, no parent is required to give any part of their body to keep that child alive.

Biology is real. Have sex and a baby can appear in your uterus. The GOP didn’t put that baby there so don’t blame a political party for its existence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my husband isn't legally obligated to donate ANY organ to our children to keep them alive (kidney, blood, liver, etc) then why should i donate my entire BODY to keep them alive when they are INSIDE MY BODY?

It makes no sense?
Why keep a FETUS alive at all costs, but a child born and needs medical care, no parent is required to give any part of their body to keep that child alive.

A newborn is born completely defenseless and yes, the parents are required to care for him. We don’t say “well we can’t force you to give him milk or bring him indoors” - of course we require care or you’ll get arrested for abandonment or murder.

The poster said dad is not required to donate an organ or part of his body to the child should the child need it.

Same difference. Parents are required to use their bodies to provide newborn care at penalty of law - bathing, clothing, feeding.

But parents can also give up care if they choose not to "use their bodies" for those newborn. People give up newborn babies every day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love this so much.

I’m glad. The GOP will wreck women’s lives if they get back in office, like 1850s bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my husband isn't legally obligated to donate ANY organ to our children to keep them alive (kidney, blood, liver, etc) then why should i donate my entire BODY to keep them alive when they are INSIDE MY BODY?

It makes no sense?
Why keep a FETUS alive at all costs, but a child born and needs medical care, no parent is required to give any part of their body to keep that child alive.

A newborn is born completely defenseless and yes, the parents are required to care for him. We don’t say “well we can’t force you to give him milk or bring him indoors” - of course we require care or you’ll get arrested for abandonment or murder.

The poster said dad is not required to donate an organ or part of his body to the child should the child need it.

+1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my husband isn't legally obligated to donate ANY organ to our children to keep them alive (kidney, blood, liver, etc) then why should i donate my entire BODY to keep them alive when they are INSIDE MY BODY?

It makes no sense?
Why keep a FETUS alive at all costs, but a child born and needs medical care, no parent is required to give any part of their body to keep that child alive.

Biology is real. Have sex and a baby can appear in your uterus. The GOP didn’t put that baby there so don’t blame a political party for its existence.

Stupid argument. Modern medicine is real too. If a zygote is created because birth control failed, there is no valid reason to be hostage to it for the next 9 months, because modern medicine has created safe ways to prevent that process from proceeding. Just because you have religious qualms about a human being *not yourself* declining to gestate a zygote inside their womb does not mean you get to impose your religious beliefs on them and force them to gestate it anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my husband isn't legally obligated to donate ANY organ to our children to keep them alive (kidney, blood, liver, etc) then why should i donate my entire BODY to keep them alive when they are INSIDE MY BODY?

It makes no sense?
Why keep a FETUS alive at all costs, but a child born and needs medical care, no parent is required to give any part of their body to keep that child alive.

Biology is real. Have sex and a baby can appear in your uterus. The GOP didn’t put that baby there so don’t blame a political party for its existence.

Rape is real. Incest is real. Maternal mortality is real. So if a woman is raped, she should be forced to deliver the product of her rape? If a woman is sexually assaulted by a family member or spouse, that she should be forced to carry the product of her assault? If a woman is in danger of losing her life, her fertility or be at risk for serious harm or death, she should be forced to go through with the pregnancy possibly sacrificing her life and causing any prior children to become motherless?

Because these are real consequences and as we've seen in Texas and Louisiana (among others), doctor's are being threatened with losing their medical licenses, being fined incredible amounts, and possibly incarcerated if they are not absolutely certain of the mother's pending death, if they perform an abortion. Because of this, most physicians are refusing to perform abortions. And because of this, the clauses that Texas lawmakers claim are protections for women are not actually protections in practice. For all intents and purposes, Texas has NO abortion rights at all for any circumstances because they have made it impossible for doctors without a secondary law degree to actually perform abortions.

[Anonymous]

If Texas is going to have these draconian rules whereby women who need abortions are denied abortions, and doctors are threatened with losing their medical licenses, being fined, or being imprisoned, I think we need a corresponding law that if a woman who is denied an abortion actually dies or loses her fertility, then the state and the legislature should be able to be sued for damages to the family for the loss of the mother or the loss of the mother's ability to have future children.

Texas lawmakers and judges claim there are protections for women and doctors, when in reality there are none. And they Texas state government is causing grave harm to many pregnant women in the state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Texas is going to have these draconian rules whereby women who need abortions are denied abortions, and doctors are threatened with losing their medical licenses, being fined, or being imprisoned, I think we need a corresponding law that if a woman who is denied an abortion actually dies or loses her fertility, then the state and the legislature should be able to be sued for damages to the family for the loss of the mother or the loss of the mother's ability to have future children.

Texas lawmakers and judges claim there are protections for women and doctors, when in reality there are none. And they Texas state government is causing grave harm to many pregnant women in the state.

And unwanted fetuses should be implanted in men.
Things that should be but can never and will never be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Texas is going to have these draconian rules whereby women who need abortions are denied abortions, and doctors are threatened with losing their medical licenses, being fined, or being imprisoned, I think we need a corresponding law that if a woman who is denied an abortion actually dies or loses her fertility, then the state and the legislature should be able to be sued for damages to the family for the loss of the mother or the loss of the mother's ability to have future children.

Texas lawmakers and judges claim there are protections for women and doctors, when in reality there are none. And they Texas state government is causing grave harm to many pregnant women in the state.

But you are positing a world in which women’s lives have value. In the forced birther cosmology, women’s lives have no value. Dying because of reproduction is God’s gift to that woman.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Absolutely repulsive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Paxton knows he can inflict pain on constituents because they like that he trolls dems and Texas Dem party is disorganized and corrupt.

Maybe that guy who is making the rounds on TV will have some influence on the election. Maybe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Paxton knows he can inflict pain on constituents because they like that he trolls dems and Texas Dem party is disorganized and corrupt.

Maybe that guy who is making the rounds on TV will have some influence on the election. Maybe.

Are you saying that political party of corruption in Texas are … the democrats?
Really?
- not from Texas

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Pretty clear.
This will be the entire United States if Trump wins.

[Anonymous]