Poll of the Day > Do you support texas's new fetal heartbeat abortion law ?

(+) Yeah! (+)

it's unavailable after 6 weeks in texas now

---

Its dumb
---

I guess it might be less arbitrary than other standards, but it's still relatively arbitrary.

---

No. Most women don't even know they're pregnant at that time, which was the point of doing it. If they want to stop abortion, they should support contraception... but this is not about reducing abortion rates. It's about using forced pregnancy and birth as a means of punishing women for having sex.

---

---

No. There are way too many people. I think woman should have the freedom to shut that process down if they want.

---

6 weeks is generally when women begin to notice they are pregnant, if they're going to notice at all. The collection of nerves that appear at 6 weeks is also not a heart, let alone any amount of heart-beating. The decision is founded on stupidity, political bias, and the need too many Christian men (in general) have to control women down to what's even done with our own bodies. 6 weeks? Buddy, the governor and Texan lawmakers would be better off writing a resignation effective in 6 weeks.

No, I do not support this act.

---

It's fun that they want women to keep unwanted pregnancies because they care about saving "lives", but don't want to wear masks because it violates their personal freedoms regardless of who gets sick.

Sage_assassin20 posted...

It's fun that they want women to keep unwanted pregnancies because they care about saving "lives", but don't want to wear masks because it violates their personal freedoms regardless of who gets sick.

they also aggressively stop giving a fuck about that life the moment it is born and become enraged at the idea of there being any level of communal responsibility to provide basic care for the child or the mother who are now at an incredible disadvantage

---

Laws should favor citizens over non-citizens. The US constitution is clear that a citizen is born or naturalized to a state. Fetuses meet neither qualification.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Laws should favor citizens over non-citizens. The US constitution is clear that a citizen is born or naturalized to a state. Fetuses meet neither qualification.

That's not how laws work or should work.

They're using an argument that the language is vague in the law. I think we counter it by saying in Texas you can only own one .24 rifle for hunting. Nothing in the 2nd amendment says you have the right to bare all arms.

Sage_assassin20 posted...

or should work.

That's a matter of opinion. I disagree with yours.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

That's a matter of opinion. I disagree with yours.

It's not a matter of opinion, since it's a fact.

Sage_assassin20 posted...

It's not a matter of opinion, since it's a fact.

I thinly the first part (how its works) would be fact, and the second (how it should work) would be opinion
---

ASlaveObeys posted...

They're using an argument that the language is vague in the law. I think we counter it by saying in Texas you can only own one .24 rifle for hunting. Nothing in the 2nd amendment says you have the right to bare all arms.

arms, not arm
---

People are still gonna get them. Theyll just be unsafe ones
---

LinkPizza posted...

People are still gonna get them. Theyll just be unsafe ones

or travel to another state
---

How backwards does Texas want to be seen as?

---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

or travel to another state

If they are still allowed to. I remember hearing they had a law about that. Don't know if that's still true...
---

Sage_assassin20 posted...

It's fun that they want women to keep unwanted pregnancies because they care about saving "lives", but don't want to wear masks because it violates their personal freedoms regardless of who gets sick.

---

The 6-week thing is bad enough (many women barely even know they're pregnant at that point, and you can bet your ass the ones that figure it out before then are generally going to have to wade through so much red tape that they'll be past the 6-week mark by the time they're allowed to pursue one), but the worst part is that they're putting the onus on private citizens to sue people over it, with the fine being paid to the accuser. Y'all Qaeda has gone full Salem on this one, and it is fucking disgusting.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Why did they have to get the ball rolling?

---

This law only bans abortions for poor people.

Rich men can still get abortions for their 13 year old sex slaves.

---

Nope. Many (but not all) pro-lifers are unreasonable control freaks. I do understand their points of view, and I'm willing to concede points to the reasonable ones, but when it comes to the more extreme types who would rather stop women and little girls from obtaining an abortion under duress such as unforeseen medical problems and sexual assault while maintaining an air of self righteousness and attacking reproductive health and low cost clinics then they can piss right off.

---

Trump literally violently raped a 13 year old girl with Jeffrey Epstein and when she cried because he wouldnt put a condom on he grabbed money out of his wallet, threw it at her and told her to use it to get a fucking abortion.

Its all in the court transcripts, easy to look up. Pro-lifers are dangerously unhinged from reality and should be treated as such.

---

Lil_Bit83 posted...

Nope. Many (but not all) pro-lifers are unreasonable control freaks. I do understand their points of view, and I'm willing to concede points to the reasonable ones, but when it comes to the more extreme types who would rather stop women and little girls from obtaining an abortion under duress such as unforeseen medical problems and sexual assault while maintaining an air of self righteousness and attacking reproductive health and low cost clinics then they can piss right off.

Mostly, I'm only ever willing to entertain a pro-life viewpoint if they're more willing to entertain measures to reduce unwanted pregnancies (comprehensive sex ed, subsidized birth control, subsidized prenatal care and improved supports for struggling parents) than they are bans on abortion. Anyone that wants to ban the cure without investing in prevention is just being a self-righteous dink that cares more about punishing women (and specifically women, because anti-abortion laws never do anything at all to target the men that helped create the problem in the first place) for having sex than about anything to do with the lives they claim to cherish.

---

If a female gets nutted and doesn't want a baby then she should of thought about the act first. Too many kids running around now days so just keep it in your pants. Don't worry about Texas worry about your own states.

---

No.

But don't have sex unless you can care for the result.

IqarP15 posted...

If a female gets nutted and doesn't want a baby then she should of thought about the act first. Too many kids running around now days so just keep it in your pants. Don't worry about Texas worry about your own states.

Fuck you, being a misogynist doesn't justify blatantly violating the constitution.

IqarP15 posted...

If a female gets nutted and doesn't want a baby then she should of thought about the act first. Too many kids running around now days so just keep it in your pants. Don't worry about Texas worry about your own states.

or they can do what they want and get an abortion

fuck you

---

IqarP15 posted...

If a female gets nutted and doesn't want a baby then she should of thought about the act first. Too many kids running around now days so just keep it in your pants. Don't worry about Texas worry about your own states.

"Too many kids running around now days so just keep it in your pants"

If you truly think that, wouldn't access to safe abortions reduce the amount of children running around?

---

Of course not

---

So... can't remove botflies any more

---

And people claim the US is controlled by liberals. Its really very conservative compared to most advanced countries and even some so called "third world" ones where abortion is not even an issue.

---

IqarP15 posted...

Too many kids running around now days so just keep it in your pants.

Would I be correct in presuming, then, that you have never had sex except with the intent of creating a baby that you are willing and able to raise?

---

Kotenks posted...

As far as the legislation goes, I don't agree with heartbeat as the starting point, but they had to get the ball rolling somehow. It's certainly something I didn't know would be possible with Roe in effect. I'm more interested in the Supreme Court taking up Roe V Wade and overturning it. So I guess, sort of. Not the ideal legislation.

Wow, you're a real garbage person

i have no say in the fight and honestly i really dont care. if i had to make a choice then id let science decide. having a heart beat doesnt mean much without a brain that forms a consciousness to go with it which is what makes a human being a human being of which maybe when the brain stem forms? which would be around week 7.

ideally id like to see better access to contraceptives, better sex education teachings and significantly better adoption options. if someone wants the pill they should be able to get it and if someone doesnt want to end a pregnancy, but doesnt want the hardships associated with raising a child then they should have access to easier adoption options. or alternatively stop fucking around and get more personal responsibility, this goes especially for men. theoretically id like to think it would cut down on abortions in general while not getting rid of or changing the option to have an abortion if you want.

Dark_Spiret posted...

theoretically id like to think it would cut down on abortions in general while not getting rid of or changing the option to have an abortion if you want.

This is really the best philosophy. Most people can agree that abortions are bad. Even the people getting them often feel pretty guilty about doing so and would prefer not to have been put in a situation where they had to make that choice. Banning them, however, just results in more risk (both physical and financial) to women that are forced to carry pregnancies to term, an overall worse experience for anyone that suffers a legitimate miscarriage (the thing everyone seems to forget is that if abortions are illegal, every miscarriage warrants a criminal investigation), and increased danger to the ones that try to pursue abortions anyway because they have only unsafe unofficial options to rely on.

Meanwhile, subsidized birth control programs and comprehensive sex ed curricula (note that the regions pushing abortion laws the hardest tend to also favour abstinence-only sex ed, which is actually worse than no sex ed at all if you look at metrics like unplanned pregnancies, sexual activity among teens, and STI rates) dramatically reduce the rates of unwanted pregnancies without having any downsides. Fewer unwanted pregnancies=fewer abortions, even when the option is still readily available. It's so easy, but you never see pro-lifers pushing that approach because they're generally more interested in punishing women for being dirty sex-havers than in actually reducing abortion rates (see also: Immediately giving up any pretense of caring about the child's life after it's born).

---

Fantastic, moving in the right direction. Now to get the Supreme court to overturn that unlawful Roe v Wade ruling.

---

No

---

Decoy77 posted...

Fantastic, moving in the right direction. Now to get the Supreme court to overturn that unlawful Roe v Wade ruling.

no

and fuck you

---

Decoy77 posted...

Fantastic, moving in the right direction. Now to get the Supreme court to overturn that unlawful Roe v Wade ruling.

cocoa puffs
---

Kotenks posted...

What biology book says life begins at week 7?

Life begins before conception... but it doesn't matter, abort all the way up to 8 months

---

Kotenks posted...

What you said about consciousness makes human being is not what science says. That's your own personal philosophy. What biology book says life begins at week 7?

Also, yeah, the beginnings of a brain stem are not consciousness.

---

Kotenks posted...

What you said about consciousness makes human being is not what science says. That's your own personal philosophy. What biology book says life begins at week 7?

that wasnt what i was getting at. i apologize if i worded it wrong. i mean it will eventually create the means to create consciousness, not that it will have it immediately when it forms a brain stem.

Dark_Spiret posted...

that wasnt what i was getting at. i apologize if i worded it wrong. i mean it will eventually create the means to create consciousness, not that it will have it immediately when it forms a brain stem.

That logic would support never aborting a fetus, though. Consciousness will eventually develop (barring anything that interrupts the process) as soon as conception occurs.

---

Decoy77 posted...

Now to get the Supreme court to overturn that unlawful Roe v Wade ruling.

Absolutely.

And then raise taxes on anyone who votes conservative to pay to take care of all the unwanted babies, and pay for the funerals of women who die giving birth to fetuses they should've aborted due to complications, to pay the medical bills of those women who survive, or of the children with disabilities or other medical issues that need constant care.

---