Not California?
Maybe, maybe not. 50 years in SV and I never met a woman who was successful, upwardly mobile, a mover and a shaker, a captain of industry etc. who worried about quick access to abortion. Do you think even the crooked ones like Homes worry about that?
How many women who DONâT bother to avail themselves of any of the various means of birth control DO bother to vote?
It doesnât matter if she uses or doesnât use the access. its having the access that counts and what women are going to fight against. also the law unfairly puts the burden on women, and others now control womenâs bodies, which ideally shouldnât happen here (only in China, I think). I suggest Texas mandate vasectomies for unmarried men. Reverse them when men get married. Voila, less to no abortion!
7 Likes
How?
âanyone can file lawsuits for at least $10,000 against someone who they suspect might have given aid or abortion information to a woman whoâs been pregnant for more than roughly six weeks.â
so now the woman canât make a decision for herself, based on medical necessity. Others can sue and weigh in on that womanâs decision.
Lawsuits is against someone not the pregnant woman.
Yes but the threat of suits is to intimidate doctors are to stop their business. Texas is a backward Bible Belt state.
2 Likes
I am going to sue unmarried men who donât have a vasectomy. Because they could also cause a pregnancy and then an abortion.
2 Likes
You should be sueing those doctors who donât advise unmarried men to have vasectomy.
Men and pregnant women are innocent.
1 Like
At the end of the day it is the same question. Morality and public order. Is it moral to kill an alive baby who can breathe and feel the pain?
Moral questions are not legal questions. You are free to stand on a milk carton and preach to every person passing by about your own moral values.
There are people who believe black and white intermarriage is immoral, gays are immoral, sex before marriage is immoral etc. Your own personal moral value is irrelevant.
Legal System does not exist in a moral vacuum. That is all I am saying. Not only that. Legal system cannot be hostile to moral order to survive in long run.
1 Like
What matters here is the collective moral value of the society as a whole. You are welcome to google poll results on the question of abortion. Majority supports legal access.
No matter which way you spin it, the Texas law is far off of most peopleâs moral values. And because of that Republicans will pay a dear political price next year. Heck, it sure helps Newsom win the Recall now. That race was practically over on the night the Court declined to intervene.
1 Like
Thanks. At least you seem to accept that morality plays into creation of legal system. I do not want to predict the future of Roe vs Wade, but the cracks have already starting to appear.
Taking a moral exception ( to allow something morally unacceptable to exist for some reason on a very small number of cases) and making it a norm is where we are seeing a push back. Abortion were probably allowed for very limited case when it was allowed, but now it has taken a shape of billions of dollars of industry. Morality will not allow it for too long if the (moral) balance is tilting in favor of limited abortions.
The unborn need stronger advocacy because they are not in a situation to defend themselves, just as a person unconscious after an accident needs someone to call help.
1 Like
Would that same rule apply to cows and pigs tortured in meat and dairy industry?
There is a section of population that is vegetarian for the same reason.
And actually, I want PETA and humane society people (and their supporters) to demand it for pigs and cows.
Vegetarians donât consume meat but they may consume dairy products. Vegans donât consume any animal products. So you agree a person eating a plate of steak and talks about pro life is a hypocrite?