I've gone back and forth on this particular issue so many times.

Joe Boudain said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Again with all due respect, they can still get an bottom until the heartbeat which I believe is six months, correct?

However horrid rape is, that is not what this is about.

This is about limiting abortion for convenience which is the vast majority of abortions. And consensual sex not rape.

---

Because of how extreme the new law is, yes it absolutely is about these extreme circumstances. Rape, incest, fetal deformities where the mother knows the baby wont survive outside the womb. Extreme situations that no one ever wants to be put in, that cause a world of pain for the mother. This is why I believe abortion should be legal. And it's why I think laws that completely disregard these situations and add to the pain, are evil.

Yes I am aware people get abortions for convenience. If you don't like that, fine. I don't like it either. But I have read up enough on this to know that making them self-administer illegal abortions isn't the answer either. I have always advocated for solutions that actually lower unplanned pregnancies and therefore abortions, such as comprehensive education and wider access to contraceptives that have PROVEN to work in other states and countries that have taken that approach.

But for some reason we keep harping on making abortion illegal, which when it all boils down to it just makes it illegal for low income women. Rich Republican men will always find a way to get their girlfriends, wives, and mistresses an abortion.

---

Really man. Bad bull.

There are so many straw men in your post it is difficult to discuss. We have rape victims and congenital problems which are a minuscule part of the abortion equation as you know.

Then the "rich, Republican card? C'mon man. No need for stooping to this kind of caricature.

It all comes down to whether you believe abortion is murder as I do. If you do not think it is murder then everything becomes relative.

---

I don't feel bad about pulling the rich Republican card because it's true. I'm not saying you are included in that group, but if their woman needs an abortion they'll get it for them as they always have. This affects low and middle income women. And I'm picking on Republicans because they vote for and pass these types of laws.

Abortion is by far the most controversial subject in American political discourse and will continue to be for a long time. I do not believe that it is murder in the first trimester. I am not sure about the early stages of the second. And I think society agrees with me on that. We do not count them on the census, we do not have funerals for miscarriages, and we do not arrest and prosecute women who miscarry or have a period that contains fertilized eggs (though with Greg Abbott as governor this can never be ruled out).

We can downplay these "rare" situations all you want but they are absolutely relevant when the laws we pass do not provide exceptions for them.

---

We do have funerals for miscarriages. Absolutely. I consider myself to have 5 children even though I only have 2 living. Anyone who doesn't is only doing so to hide the pain.

---

I'm sorry to hear that.

And I'm glad no one sued you or your wife for any of those 3 miscarriages as suspected abortions, which they can do under this new Texas law. They can sue both her and you for aiding and abetting an abortion. Even if you didn't have one, they could have reasonable suspicion you did. Then you are tied up in a legal battle, spending money on lawyers while you are going through an incredibly painful family situation and dealing with an evil, malicious bully who wants some money from you because you might have aborted one of those babies, even though you didn't. There's a chance they could convince a jury you did, though. Then you're on the hook for $10k plus their attorney's fees.

I'm so glad that didn't happen to you. That would have been so evil to put you through that.

---

I think the chances of that happening are extremely slim which is I'm not worried about being charged with a suspected abortion regardless of what happens in the future. Reasonable suspicion is reasonable suspicion and miscarrying does not reach that standard, nor do I believe it reasonable for you to worry that it would.

---

Already set up a website.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/texas-antiabortion-groups-already-getting-tip-offs-about-potential-law-violations-says-report

Macarthur said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Again with all due respect, they can still get an bottom until the heartbeat which I believe is six months, correct?

However horrid rape is, that is not what this is about.

This is about limiting abortion for convenience which is the vast majority of abortions. And consensual sex not rape.

---

Because of how extreme the new law is, yes it absolutely is about these extreme circumstances. Rape, incest, fetal deformities where the mother knows the baby wont survive outside the womb. Extreme situations that no one ever wants to be put in, that cause a world of pain for the mother. This is why I believe abortion should be legal. And it's why I think laws that completely disregard these situations and add to the pain, are evil.

Yes I am aware people get abortions for convenience. If you don't like that, fine. I don't like it either. But I have read up enough on this to know that making them self-administer illegal abortions isn't the answer either. I have always advocated for solutions that actually lower unplanned pregnancies and therefore abortions, such as comprehensive education and wider access to contraceptives that have PROVEN to work in other states and countries that have taken that approach.

But for some reason we keep harping on making abortion illegal, which when it all boils down to it just makes it illegal for low income women. Rich Republican men will always find a way to get their girlfriends, wives, and mistresses an abortion.

---

Really man. Bad bull.

There are so many straw men in your post it is difficult to discuss. We have rape victims and congenital problems which are a minuscule part of the abortion equation as you know.

Then the "rich, Republican card? C'mon man. No need for stooping to this kind of caricature.

It all comes down to whether you believe abortion is murder as I do. If you do not think it is murder then everything becomes relative.

---

I don't feel bad about pulling the rich Republican card because it's true. I'm not saying you are included in that group, but if their woman needs an abortion they'll get it for them as they always have. This affects low and middle income women. And I'm picking on Republicans because they vote for and pass these types of laws.

Abortion is by far the most controversial subject in American political discourse and will continue to be for a long time. I do not believe that it is murder in the first trimester. I am not sure about the early stages of the second. And I think society agrees with me on that. We do not count them on the census, we do not have funerals for miscarriages, and we do not arrest and prosecute women who miscarry or have a period that contains fertilized eggs (though with Greg Abbott as governor this can never be ruled out).

We can downplay these "rare" situations all you want but they are absolutely relevant when the laws we pass do not provide exceptions for them.

---

We do have funerals for miscarriages. Absolutely. I consider myself to have 5 children even though I only have 2 living. Anyone who doesn't is only doing so to hide the pain.

---

I'm sorry to hear that.

And I'm glad no one sued you or your wife for any of those 3 miscarriages as suspected abortions, which they can do under this new Texas law. They can sue both her and you for aiding and abetting an abortion. Even if you didn't have one, they could have reasonable suspicion you did. Then you are tied up in a legal battle, spending money on lawyers while you are going through an incredibly painful family situation and dealing with an evil, malicious bully who wants some money from you because you might have aborted one of those babies, even though you didn't. There's a chance they could convince a jury you did, though. Then you're on the hook for $10k plus their attorney's fees.

I'm so glad that didn't happen to you. That would have been so evil to put you through that.

---

I think the chances of that happening are extremely slim which is I'm not worried about being charged with a suspected abortion regardless of what happens in the future. Reasonable suspicion is reasonable suspicion and miscarrying does not reach that standard, nor do I believe it reasonable for you to worry that it would.

---

Already set up a website.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/texas-antiabortion-groups-already-getting-tip-offs-about-potential-law-violations-says-report

---

Tempest in a teapot. I've never heard of The Daily Beast, but i'm going to take the article at face value and note that the gentlemen refrenced in the article correctly states that they're monitoring the abortion clinics and they're employees to ensure that they're not doing abortions, and not hunting down miscarrying mothers.

I think it's a good thing that the abortion clinics are receiving heightened attention; I want it to be extremely unprofitable and uncomfortable to run an abortion clinic, so they'll stop. Maybe they'll actually start focusing on the other 97% of their business and helping poor women with cheap healthcare.

It's going to get overflowed with fake tips. And there will also be a bunch of fake lawsuits filed because the law does not allow attorney's fees for the defendant, so there is no risk. Anyone can sue anyone for any type of suspicion, so courts will be clogged.

But on the bright side, fathers can rape their minor daughters, intimidate them to not report anything, and then if she aborts the father can sue and collect a quick and easy $10k. Just as God intended.

How so? The hypotheticals seem too farfetched?

While they may be farfetched, I have a huuuuge problem with that part of the law. There will be a lot of ridiculous lawsuits that come out of this and it does open the door to some pretty f***ed up situations.

While the text of the law does not allow rapists to sue, I can certainly picture a scenario where a rapist either intimidates the victim to not report it, or sues prior to being charged. The rapist's family also has standing to sue.

When there is zero risk to the plaintiffs for filing suit, we should expect a lot of awful lawsuits to come in.

larry culpepper said:

---

It's going to get overflowed with fake tips. And there will also be a bunch of fake lawsuits filed because the law does not allow attorney's fees for the defendant, so there is no risk. Anyone can sue anyone for any type of suspicion, so courts will be clogged.

But on the bright side, fathers can rape their minor daughters, intimidate them to not report anything, and then if she aborts the father can sue and collect a quick and easy $10k. Just as God intended.

---

Are you sure that you understand the law now? Earlier it was clear that you didn't. From your posting I can tell that you're slightly unhinged on this topic.

Can a woman sue her doctor for giving her an abortion?

As a pro-lifer I'm all about reducing abortions but I think this law is sloppily written and will be thrown out sooner rather than later. The only way abortion will be ultimately reduced or banned is by a Supreme Court decision and I don't think that happens with a Roberts lead court.

Joe Boudain said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

It's going to get overflowed with fake tips. And there will also be a bunch of fake lawsuits filed because the law does not allow attorney's fees for the defendant, so there is no risk. Anyone can sue anyone for any type of suspicion, so courts will be clogged.

But on the bright side, fathers can rape their minor daughters, intimidate them to not report anything, and then if she aborts the father can sue and collect a quick and easy $10k. Just as God intended.

---

Are you sure that you understand the law now? Earlier it was clear that you didn't. From your posting I can tell that you're slightly unhinged on this topic.

---

There are quite a few loopholes in the law as I explained earlier. In addition to being an awful law it's very poorly written. Try addressing points instead of just attempting to shut down with one liner "gotchas"

Joe Boudain said:

---

Very saddening how such a thing as ripping a baby out of the place where it should feel the most love and safety in the world, and killing it, is a laughing matter to some.

---

Our species is far more barbaric and primitive than we would like to admit. Our country being chief regarding this matter.

Will someone have to apologize for what happened to the good people of Sodom and Gomorrah?

Could an event similar to that happen again?

larry culpepper said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

It's going to get overflowed with fake tips. And there will also be a bunch of fake lawsuits filed because the law does not allow attorney's fees for the defendant, so there is no risk. Anyone can sue anyone for any type of suspicion, so courts will be clogged.

But on the bright side, fathers can rape their minor daughters, intimidate them to not report anything, and then if she aborts the father can sue and collect a quick and easy $10k. Just as God intended.

---

Are you sure that you understand the law now? Earlier it was clear that you didn't. From your posting I can tell that you're slightly unhinged on this topic.

---

There are quite a few loopholes in the law as I explained earlier. In addition to being an awful law it's very poorly written. Try addressing points instead of just attempting to shut down with one liner "gotchas"

---

I'm not attempting a gotcha, it's not a gotcha to say you were acting like vigilantes were going to be able to sue women who had miscarriages for "not showing anymore", and then admitted you had misunderstood the law.

Now you're talking about fathers raping daughters to collect $10k, and are asking me to address points.

Joe Boudain said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

It's going to get overflowed with fake tips. And there will also be a bunch of fake lawsuits filed because the law does not allow attorney's fees for the defendant, so there is no risk. Anyone can sue anyone for any type of suspicion, so courts will be clogged.

But on the bright side, fathers can rape their minor daughters, intimidate them to not report anything, and then if she aborts the father can sue and collect a quick and easy $10k. Just as God intended.

---

Are you sure that you understand the law now? Earlier it was clear that you didn't. From your posting I can tell that you're slightly unhinged on this topic.

---

There are quite a few loopholes in the law as I explained earlier. In addition to being an awful law it's very poorly written. Try addressing points instead of just attempting to shut down with one liner "gotchas"

---

I'm not attempting a gotcha, it's not a gotcha to say you were acting like vigilantes were going to be able to sue women who had miscarriages for "not showing anymore", and then admitted you had misunderstood the law.

Now you're talking about fathers raping daughters to collect $10k, and are asking me to address points.

---

Under the text of the law, women technically can be sued for self administering.

I know these are extreme examples, but this law does weaponize people to be vigilantes. And it is naive to think people won't be.

I don't see it that way, I see the $10k as an end-run to force the providers of abortion to pull-out (no pun intended) due to the new "bounties". So yes, Texas has defacto made abortion illegal, while not making abortion illegal.

Conservatives would say that the right to bear arms is enshrined in the constitution whereas the right to kill your child isn't.

Joe Boudain said:

---

I don't see it that way, I see the $10k as an end-run to force the providers of abortion to pull-out (no pun intended) due to the new "bounties". So yes, Texas has defacto made abortion illegal, while not making abortion illegal.

Conservatives would say that the right to bear arms is enshrined in the constitution whereas the right to kill your child isn't.

---

That does not address the question of why abortion is the only crime that gets this $10k bounty.

Conservatives that say that are picking and choosing which laws they think they need to follow.

It's pretty much the worst crime imaginable so there ya go.

Joe Boudain said:

---

I don't see it that way, I see the $10k as an end-run to force the providers of abortion to pull-out (no pun intended) due to the new "bounties". So yes, Texas has defacto made abortion illegal, while not making abortion illegal.

Conservatives would say that the right to bear arms is enshrined in the constitution whereas the right to kill your child isn't.

---

As Kurt said, how you see it is pretty irrelevant to the point he made.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

I'm sure that the law will lead to some abuse, but I think the more important discussion is what the law means, what it does and is intended to do and not how 'tightly' it was written. I suspect you'll find plenty of pro-lifers that disagree with how the vigilante incentives are laid out in the bill.

Abortion is something that has been discussed and allowed by the SCOTUS and there is plenty of precedent for its legality. The bill nearly makes Roe V Wade inapplicable in Texas. Although I understand that is the appeal for many on the right, its a clear attempt to allow Texas to pick and choose which laws, rights, or SC decisions it wants to follow. The law doesn't regulate abortion. It makes it as close to impossible as they thought they could get away with. And the SCOTUS was well aware of it and decided to not defend an obvious infringement on legal precedent based on political affiliation. I think this is all a bad sign for everyone with enough foresight to look beyond their short term political goals.

This law isn't about reducing abortion numbers. Its about control of women. Pure and simple. There are ways to reduce abortion and conservatives really don't care. In many cases, they block those efforts whenever they can. The pendulum is going to swing left. It already has. And Republicans seem to think the solution is to just keep pushing up the pendulum on their side giving it more potential energy in its swing.

We don't incentivize reporting other crimes in the same manner. With few exceptions, no one gets paid to provide evidence in a murder or rape or other crime. The $10k bounty offered for abortion makes it clear that for the Republican law makers in Texas, this isn't about law and order. Its about sanctimony and righteous retribution. Its emotional and its self righteous.

Imagine if California passed a law outlawing assault rifles and then offered a $10k bounty for anyone who turned in someone who owned an assault rifle. Conservatives would lose their damned minds. And they'd be right to do so. . . . but somehow its okay when they agree with the bill in question.

---

Banning bad things is good. Banning good things is bad.

I'm being honest when I ask you this- how hard is that concept to understand?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

I don't see it that way, I see the $10k as an end-run to force the providers of abortion to pull-out (no pun intended) due to the new "bounties". So yes, Texas has defacto made abortion illegal, while not making abortion illegal.

Conservatives would say that the right to bear arms is enshrined in the constitution whereas the right to kill your child isn't.

---

That does not address the question of why abortion is the only crime that gets this $10k bounty.

Conservatives that say that are picking and choosing which laws they think they need to follow.

---

It's one of the few crimes that is currently legal. They have to do this sort of thing to make it illegal. That doesn't make sense?

Just like with the guns. Owning guns is currently legal, california would have to go to some lengths (which they have done in some part) to make it to where it's nearly impossible, since they can't outright ban them.

I agree with all of your points. Maybe I was focusing on the wrong things by creating hypotheticals. Nonetheless, I would not be surprised if any of those scenarios happened.

A few responses:

Quote:

---

This law isn't about reducing abortion numbers. Its about control of women. Pure and simple. There are ways to reduce abortion and conservatives really don't care. In many cases, they block those efforts whenever they can. The pendulum is going to swing left. It already has. And Republicans seem to think the solution is to just keep pushing up the pendulum on their side giving it more potential energy in its swing.

---

Agree 100%. It is always a bunch of wealthy men passing these laws. Who have no idea what it's like to be pregnant, much less the result of rape. There are some women who support it too but they are a clear minority.

I have right wing, Trump supporting relatives who cringe at this law and are pissed off. They think it is far too extreme and only exists to satisfy the most extreme wing of evangelicals in the party. They are afraid this will just push more people to the left, and they are correct. The pendulum has swung. It's disturbing watching both sides get more and more extreme when most people are really somewhere in the middle.

Quote:

---

We don't incentivize reporting other crimes in the same manner. With few exceptions, no one gets paid to provide evidence in a murder or rape or other crime. The $10k bounty offered for abortion makes it clear that for the Republican law makers in Texas, this isn't about law and order. Its about sanctimony and righteous retribution. Its emotional and its self righteous.

---

110% agree. I mentioned this on the politics board, and i'll do so again. This law isn't about actually stopping abortion, but more so to satisfy a vindictive desire to punish women who seek abortions. If the GOP was actually serious about this they would look at the data to see what has been proven to result in decreased abortions. They are absolutely unwilling to do so.

I know this is also a tired talking point but I'll never get tired of pointing out that the party does not care about protecting life post-birth. Abbott did next to nothing after any of the recent awful mass shootings in Texas, or for people who died in the February freeze, nor to lead statewide efforts to combat covid and get people vaccinated. We consistently have among the lowest rates of insured adults and children, awful maternal mortality rates, a joke of an education system, a joke of a foster care system. It's not far fetched to point out that Greg Abbott and the party really do not care about the lives of these children.

People get annoyed when I point this stuff out, but these are real problems that shouldn't just be ignored. A lot of people roll their eyes and say that these kids aren't their problem and the mother shoulda thought about that before having sex. Which just tells me they aren't really pro-life, but more so pro-birth. Abortion laws are just feel good self-righteous laws that have a negligible effect on actual abortion rates.

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Banning bad things is good. Banning good things is bad.

I'm being honest when I ask you this- how hard is that concept to understand?

---

taking away a person's bodily autonomy is a very bad thing. And ask Sandy Hook parents if the gun that killed their children is a 'good thing'.

Amazing how the perspective you view things has bearing on if you see that thing as good or bad.

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Banning bad things is good. Banning good things is bad.

I'm being honest when I ask you this- how hard is that concept to understand?

---

I believe that forcefully inflicting one's opinion on "good" and "bad" is a bad thing. I understand your concept, but its simplistic to the point of being stupid.

Bodily autonomy? What about the baby's bodily autonomy? Or are you one of those depraved people who see the child as a parasite?

Guns possess no agency. The murderer killed those poor children.

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Bodily autonomy? What about the baby's bodily autonomy? Or are you one of those depraved people who see the child as a parasite?

Guns possess no agency. The murderer killed those poor children.

---

the baby doesn't have bodily autonomy as it is dependent upon the mother. I would not use your choice of words by saying parasite, but it does depend on the mother.

I'm depraved for thinking the bodily autonomy of the mother should be the first priority?

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Bodily autonomy? What about the baby's bodily autonomy? Or are you one of those depraved people who see the child as a parasite?

Guns possess no agency. The murderer killed those poor children.

---

The talking past one another will continue because there is not an agreement on when 'life' begins. I submitted earlier that religious arguments should be disqualified in a non-theocracy. A few defenses of life at conception were offered and quickly shot down or questioned.

Yes. Yes you are.

I think in the first trimester, the mother's bodily autonomy trumps the embryo's. I do not believe it is murder if done at this point.

I know people don't agree with that stance, but the pro-choice argument makes a lot more sense when one understands that this is our view.

larry culpepper said:

---

I think in the first trimester, the mother's bodily autonomy trumps the embryo's. I do not believe it is murder if done at this point.

I know people don't agree with that stance, but the pro-choice argument makes a lot more sense when one understands that this is our view.

---

I acftually believe the mother's bodily autonomy extends well beyond this. Otherwise, why would we allow late term in the case of the mother's life being in danger?

Start with the child drawing first breath and work backwards. What began the unbroken chain of events that brought that unique child into the world? Conception.

The rest is just pseudo intellectual navel gazing.