Finally, some common sense in Texas

It doesn't happen there often, but when it does, I'm thankful!

Womens Rights - 1 ......... Zygotes Rights - 0

As it should be.

I looked up his bio expecting that he'd come from somewhere else but was shocked to learn he is a Bush appointee who got his BA and law degree from the University of Texas.

I am truly shocked. There really are reasonable people who were born, raised, and educated in Texas? I must now conclude that there are.

I don't even know what to say. I never hear anything good out of Texas. I'm going to have to mull this over a while to figure out what it means.

I know it's not right to lump an entire group of people together and make assumptions about all of them...but seriously, I literally NEVER hear anything good or right or reasonable or intelligent coming from Texas. I welcome the possibility that I was wrong as well as the opportunity to update my image of the lonestar state and its people.

Now watch...they'll probably lynch him or something. Just kidding...mostly.

Here in Texas, judges have a good sense of smell. if it smells like fascism, then it probably is fascism.

Yeah, I know, fascism is overused, and often incorrectly. Here it is acutely appropriate.

From Wikipedia: Fascism is a radical, authoritarian nationalist political ideology. It advocates . . . indoctrination . . and family policy (such as eugenics). Fascists seek to purge forces, ideas, people, and systems deemed to be the cause of decadence and degeneration, . . . Fascists believe that a nation requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong.

Familiar?

Glad common sense took hold, but why did it take so long?

well said, bill-austin. that definition sounds like the description of a Dumbya Bush speech!

Funny that cigarette companies can not only be forced to put warning labels on their products but can also be forced to fund anti-smoking campaigns and propaganda. You would think this judge would have thrown such laws out as a violation of free speech.

Funny that cigarette companies can not only be forced to put warning labels on their products but can also be forced to fund anti-smoking campaigns and propaganda. You would think this judge would have thrown such laws out as a violation of free speech.

No matter what Justice Scalia thinks (in what many believe is one of the worst Supreme Court rulings ever made), corporations are not "people", and as such they are not entitled to Constitutional protections.

They are, however, subject to government regulations, and that's what governments do in mixed-market economies like ours and every other economy in the industrialized world.

I find it difficult to believe that a preponderance of those who voted for this invasive law could not have clearly anticipated this ruling. They voted to pass this law not because it was good governance, but solely because it would score political partisan points. It is morally reprehensible to be elected to enact good governance for your constituents, and then to willingly pass bad legislation knowing or hoping that the courts would save you from your own conniving and duplicitous actions.

Hopefully king kasich in Ohio is watching.

I'm truly shocked that there could be an actual ruling that follows the Constitution, rather than attempting to rewrite it, in Texas.

Awesome!

Speaking of freedom of speech violations here is julio egain attacking. And don't bother replying with your poison, I am ignoring all comments from you

I find it difficult to believe that a preponderance of those who voted for this invasive law could not have clearly anticipated this ruling.

Reliant, I assign more nefarious motives to right-wingers. I think they try to chip away at their pet social and political issues. They want to ban abortion. They want to weaken unions and therefore weaken Democrats. They want to pass anti-voter registration and restrictive ID laws because they know that hurts Democrats.

I think they're weasels that have no qualms about hurting this country to get back into power...and when they get power back they will pass as many of these laws as they can. It's what they do...it's who they are.

what ever happened to ...keep the government out of my life ... freedom from oppression ... 5th amendment rights .. why is the tea party silent about government intervention when it comes to womens health .. OH I know the right wing is protecing the unborn child until... it can be breath on its own then throw the welfare kid and its lazy mother under the bus why dont the anti abortion crowd set up shelters for these women and when the child is born they can raise it themselves.. give the child an education at the best schools give the child good clothes and the best nutrition ..

Will someone tell The Devil-1138528 the difference between a person and a corporation? How ignorant can a body be ?

The Republican teabaggers should be made to pay back all of the unconstitutionally FORCED sonograms billed to all patients. Just sayin.

The Republicans are FULL OF HOT STEAMING $HIT. They claim they want the government out of people's lives...except when it comes to people's civil rights. They do everything they can to violate individual liberty...with the exception of gun nuts and billionaires...

How do they continually get away with this galactic-sized hypocrisy?

Yes, we have quite a bit of stupidity, here in Texas, but there are some of us that are the exception to that notion. If you want to have something good to say about Texas, come to Austin, the liberal island surrounded by a sea of red. Also known as "The Live Music Capitol Of The World", as the saying goes.

The Texas Medical Association opposed the law because it dictated when a doctor must perform a procedure and how the doctor must deal with a patient. While a pre-abortion ultrasound is routine, it is not considered medically necessary.

Damn those doctors! What the hell do they know? My mythological book from two thousand years ago knows all about everything!

Isn't it repubs that are always saying "you cant legislate morality" ...they certainly have trouble following their own catch phrases. Oh that's right, its only the morals they want that should be law.

They will never stop, they have a steering wheel, you have a butt, they will mate the two sooner or later.

Slavery is right after they abolish SS,........ and medical...HA, slaves don’t see doctors.

Pvblivs

Fine, let me describe what I see. Some grey and black dots, bit blurry, won't quite hold still. Done. Or how about this one for ya, 'I see a fetus.' There are plenty of ways around 'describing what you see,' or are you going to say that suddenly the doctor's 'own words' aren't good enough? Where would you draw the line? What would make you happy? I think deciding to get an abortion is hard enough as it is.

But personally, I can't believe that you wouldn't be terrified that the would try to pass a law to make you sign a legal document stating that you or a loved one were a victim of rape, incest or had a genetic disease so it could be filed as a public document. Really? You want that information out there for everyone to know with a simple records search? You want potential employers to know your family is full of molestors? Or perhaps that you're damaged goods because you were the victim of rape. How would you like for your health insurer to know you carry a genetic marker for a disease?

This is government at its most intrusive. If they wanted to discourage abortion, they should have doctors offer information on adoption. Maybe make it easier for gay couples to adopt. After all, if you're such an abortion foe, isn't being raised in a gay family better than termination? Probably not.

Honestly I think it's hysterical that all the opponents of abortion don't run around offering more adoption information. I'm pro women's rights, and I would never tell anyone what they can or cannot do, and my first response to abortion is adoption. But I have never once heard it on the table as an anti abortion option. Even you failed to mention what you would do instead of the abortion.

Years ago, George Carlin pointed out (quite rightly) that you don't see many anti abortion fans offering to adopt any of these babies because it was something Christ might do. That was 20 or so years ago. It's so good to see nothing much has changed in the Anti Woman camp in that time.

It's not a baby; it's a fetus.

Hopefully Perry won't somehow get points for this one.

Fusea:

If abortion supporters had adequate time to prep their abortionists with the descriptions you gave, they might not have opposed this law. Naturally, they would oppose any law that required the woman actually to look at that sonogram. It's a little harder when people see a person with their own eyes.

What "the annointed one" might do is of little concern to me as I am not a follower.

Now, you say that you would never tell anyone what he can or cannot do. I'm going to go way out on a limb here and say that you favor the laws against rape. (For the record, I do myself.) If that is the case, then you would tell someone what he can or cannot do.

I have no objection to gay people adopting. I also have no objection to single parents adopting. I think that the existing rules on adoption are far too restrictive. But that's a different issue.

It's quite true that I didn't give a course of action in place of the abortion, just like I didn't give a course of action in place of pulling the trigger.

Sorry. Zygotes dont have equal rights!

And here I thought Republicans wanted Government out of peoples life's...

Andrew547

No matter what Justice Scalia thinks (in what many believe is one of the worst Supreme Court rulings ever made), corporations are not "people", and as such they are not entitled to Constitutional protections.

They are, however, subject to government regulations, and that's what governments do in mixed-market economies like ours and every other economy in the industrialized world.

Really? Because if you are saying that regardless of free speech that businesses who aren't people can be regulated by government then that Doctors office, a business with a business license hanging on the wall and in most cases a PLC, LLC or Corporation can be regulated as well.

Thus they have no defense under free speech. Your claim of regulation doesn't work for some businesses and not others.

Texas wouldn't have such a high abortion rate if they provided people with birth control and taught some thing other than abstinance in the schools. But the religious right, and they are called that because they think their beliefs are right and everyone else is wrong, have Texas afraid to even mention the word condom in a class room.

How about postpartum abortion? This legislature would be better off if some of them were aborted.

Matilda Tuscany

Stop pretending a Zygote is a person. It isn’t.

Stop pretending your values must be shared and adhered to by all. They dont.

Stop the BS that makes your statement seem moral, logical, or even some kind of common sense. It isnt.

In short, keep your views and choices of your self, for your self.

Chris:

If you are saying that people who do not agree with you should shut up so that dissent is not heard, why don't you lead by example and shut up yourself? But since you do not keep your views to yourself, don't expect anyone else to either.

The difference I see between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives will tolerate an endless amount of "speech" from the left, while the left seeks to silence all disagreement.

The left is truly scary. Why else is "free" speech not free, and a woman's right to kill is called the right to choose?

We live in a time where the language has been so bastardized as to become meaningless. This is the beginning of anarchy.

Chris:

If you are saying that people who do not agree with you should shut up so that dissent is not heard, why don't you lead by example and shut up yourself? But since you do not keep your views to yourself, don't expect anyone else to either.

What Im saying is even easier, keep your own chit to your self and dont impose your beliefs on others.

Republicans and some other small minded people think they have a steering wheel up other people's azz and they can steer your life and choices for you.

They cant.

I hope my syllables weren’t too big?

So Rick Perry is worried about abortion? Hope he never has one. But I have a solution to abortions-- neuter ALL males.

I think you are confusing free speech with the right of the right wingers to poke their noses and opinions into another persons fertility.

The left isn't scary, Practical Libertarian. We aren't trying to force our beliefs on those who sit on the right. We just believe that you righties need to keep your noses our of our fertility. What a pregnant woman does is between her spouse/partner, physician and herself. You don't have to like the decisions they make, but you also have no right to condemn those decisions either.

When abortion is chosen, who are any of us to criticize this choice, when we know nothing about the person making this decision, why this choice has been made, whether or not this is the result of incest or rape, whether or not there is something seriously wrong with a fetus, or whether pregnancy poses a significant risk to the mother.

This information is private and is really none of your business. Yet, you on the right seem to think that you have a right to tell women what they should do, and you claim this is because you have the right of free speech. Maybe you should get the facts before you go spouting your mouth off. Why must you make the presumption that if a woman chooses abortion it's because she's using it purely as a method of birth control?

@practical libertarian - That's the most absurd thing I've heard all day. If you cant see how manipulative the repubs are, just look at some of the crooked people they employ to get their message out. Frank Luntz and Karl Rove are two of the most despicable people alive, their entire life is based on how to manipulate language and the truth to their advantage.

while the left seeks to silence all disagreement

On what planet?

a woman's right to kill is called the right to choose? ......Oxymoron

Free speech has never been free, many have did to keep it free, and many have died to keep others opinions from becoming mandatory for all.

Really? Because if you are saying that regardless of free speech that businesses who aren't people can be regulated by government then that Doctors office, a business with a business license hanging on the wall and in most cases a PLC, LLC or Corporation can be regulated as well.

Thus they have no defense under free speech. Your claim of regulation doesn't work for some businesses and not others.

Good to know reasonable people have not abandoned this site, The Devil.

I think the answer is that doctors are not corporations. I don't know but I imagine most doctors dba LLP's or sole proprietorships, which is different from a "corporation" in that they are not setting up a legal entity that shields them from liability - as straight up incorporation does. In an LLP and sole proprietorship, the individuals are legally responsible for their actions.

But, even if a doctor works for a true corporation, that doctor has a relationship with patients that is protected. Same is true for the attorney-client relationship, regardless of incorporation status.

Having said that, I know that most law firms are set up as LLP's or sole proprietorships. Whether or not they do it for the obvious legal issues you raised I can't say, but if they do then doctor's do too.

If I'm missing something I hope you let me know.

What I see more and more, as the religious sectors permeat not only the government but the judicial system as well, is the dire need to more define and amend the constitution on what is a more clear definition of the meaning of seperation of church and state and enforce those laws.

"Jobs jobs jobs?" These are the Tea Parties' true colors.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican who is running for president, was critical of Tuesday's ruling. Perry had made the law one of his top priorities for the 2011 legislative session.

This is why I won't vote for Perry. I WILL VOTE FOR ROMNEY.

Listen up Republicans. You need us independents to win and we absolutely will not vote for religious zealots or politicians who oppose abortions.

I'll consider Romney in 2016 - even tho' he is a mormon, he would not sign that whacked out pledge on morality that all the rest signed, for the far right taliban. (defense of marriage, etc.)

To Brent who lives in Austin, you got that right! Have a son who lives there. He's tried leaving 3 times but has been drawn back each time. I think he's learned his lesson and is there for good this time. Austin is truly a fantastic town as are the people who live there. In his experience, friends there are not just friends, they are loyal friends. Each time he's left then gone back he's been welcomed "home" with open arms.

Chris:

And yet here you are, seeking to impose your beliefs on others. In fact, most laws are about imposing beliefs on others. I don't suppose you prefer anarchy.

a woman's right to kill is called the right to choose? ......Oxymoron

Wow!! When did women get the right to kill????? You see, abortion is NOT murder and last time I checked, abortion is legal. That's right....it's LEGAL!!!!! So get over it!

LS:

"When did women get the right to kill?????"

That was in the 1970's with Roe vs. Wade.

"So get over it!"

Tell you what, once abortion is successfully made illegal again (as it should be) you can get over it. The fact is that people advocate for and against proposed laws for the simple fact that they will not "get over it." Nor should they have to. If a law is bad, it is the right of citizens to speak out for its change.

I read an interesting survey of 30,000 people concerning abortion. The survey was considered to be the most comprehensive in history for abortion.

The data was broken down by groups (age, sex, religious denomination, nationality, etc...).

The one piece of data that stood out the most was the age group of 18-35 year olds - the ones who will be making legislation in the next few decades. I'm going from memory and might not have the exact number, but that age group polled either 64% or 67% in favor of abortion and would support any and all legislation in favor of abortion rights.

I, for one, am opposed to abortion. I also consider life to begin at conception. But I also see the writing on the wall... Roe vs. Wade will NEVER be overturned - no matter how hard people like me try to end the slaughter. Numbers don't lie, and the numbers are clearly against my personal beliefs. All I can do is influence those around me in a positive way, with the understanding that my position is a dying one.

So sad!

Sorry, but it's not a bad law. It's a law that actually protects women and offers them safe medical solutions. You see, abortion, even when it was not legal, was still done. Just making it illegal does not stop the action. It just drives women into back alley's with a dirty coat hanger.

I know I will never convince a Pro-Lifer to see my way, but Pro-Lifers also need to realize that they will never convince a Pro-Choicer of their views. Abortion is legal! That is a fact!

Ryan, I found a better quote for you. The "BASIS" of the lawsuit was the "intentional infliction of emotional distress."

Below is another reporter's paraphrase of what the judge said but the addition is critical which is why msnbc failed to accurately report what the judge said. The additional sentence confirms the basis of the claim.

http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/parenting/kids-lose-quot-bad-mother-quot-lawsuit-cant-take-mom-to-court-over-bad-birthday-cards-2536188/

"Such alleged actions are unpleasant and perhaps insensitive, and some would arguably fall outside the realm of 'good mothering,' but they are not so shocking as to form a basis for a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress," said Judge Kathy Flanagan in a court statement, adding that ruling in favor of the children "could potentially open the floodgates to subject family child rearing to ... excessive judicial scrutiny and interference."

Cassandra - Why wait until 2016 to vote for Romney when the next election is 2012?

I, for one, am opposed to abortion. I also consider life to begin at conception. But I also see the writing on the wall... Roe vs. Wade will NEVER be overturned - no matter how hard people like me try to end the slaughter.

This is YOUR opinion and YOU don't have to have an abortion.

Abortion is legal. ABORTION IS NOT MURDER.

You are correct in your assessment. Roe v Wade will NEVER be overturned.

The majority of Americans believe in freedom of choice.

oops - 1.53 is posted on the wrong seed. I apologize. It's very early in the morning for me.

Karen - You see, it is the comments you plow down the throat of those who don't see things exactly like you do that causes bitterness.

I stated my opinion, and conceeded defeat in Roe vs. Wade, but you still must attack with harsh words and CAPITAL letters to yell at me.

Would killing myself to forever silence a voice who does not agree with you make you happy?

Pvblivs

Chris:

And yet here you are, seeking to impose your beliefs on others. In fact, most laws are about imposing beliefs on others. I don't suppose you prefer anarchy.

Your full of it, writing in your own small understandings where there is none.

Typical, I suggest a good class in English, your don’t have a clue how to read with out interjecting BS and then claiming others wrote it.

What planet are you from?

PVB,

Here's where you miss the logic train...

1. Liberals (I'm generalizing here for the sake of saving time, assuming most people who are pro-choice are liberal) aren't forcing you to do, say, not do, or not say anything. Say what you will, and Chris can say he doesn't want you to say it. No harm, no foul, free speech for all. He isn't actively seeking to silence you through legislation.

2. Conservatives (again generalizing, I apologize) take a belief they have, whether it has a moral or relgious basis (morals being individual, and religion being something I have the freedom FROM) and use them to actively attempt to pass laws restricting others behaviors.

Let's put this together...

Right now, you have the freedom to either have an abortion, or NOT have an abortion. You have the right to protest at abortion clinics. You have the right to post, what I consider judgments, about what women should or shouldn't be allowed to do. No one is saying you shouldn't be allowed to do any of those things.

What you and other conservatives are saying, is that women SHOULDN'T be allowed to choose what to do with their bodies. This law was trying to tell women what medical treatments they had to undergo, regardless of necessity. You're actively trying to make a law that limits my options in regards to my body, and then you say you're protecting the unborn baby, but you have a complete lack of scientific evidence to show that it IS a baby and not a FETUS. So you are using your religion and morals, which my Consitution says I am free from, to try to tell me what I can do with my body.

What you said about Chris imposing his beliefs on others, is EXACTLY what you are trying to do. Chris would be imposing his beliefs on others if he was trying to enact a law that would force you to have an abortion, and have a complete lack of scientifc evidence as to why you should have an abortion.

Do you see the difference?

Do you see the difference?

Probably not.

Probably not.

Touche.

concernedone

Here is a tiny violin.

If a law is bad, it is the right of citizens to speak out for its change.

FYI - a law can not change it because the law would be ruled unconstitutional based on past precedent, including Roe v Wade.

I have a challenge understanding how YOU think YOU have any right to tell OTHER PEOPLE what to do with THEIR OWN BODIES.

Freedom of choice to have, or not to have, an abortion is the ONLY SOLUTION that works for all sides because it puts the decision in the hands of the INDIVIDUAL who is affected.

Funny that Karen in LA understands personal freedom of choice in this case, but not when it comes to same sex marriage....where she thinks the state should force Christian Sharia law on everyone.

Karen - Thank you. You have made your point publicly, so when the LORD and Judge of all has you in His presence and demands an account of your life, stuff like your public declaration (which is truely a reflection of your heart) will be difficult to brush aside (IMHO).

Good luck with that!

Concernd,

And when you get in front of my God, She/He is planning on slapping you upside the head and telling you to knock off the presumtuous, judgmental, bs. I know so, cause I read it in a really old book.

You are attempting to quote from something you don't believe in, as if you really know what it says??? Interesting...

No, I'm attempting to show you that your God and concept of Judgment day has no bearing in anyone's life, but yours.

Sarah - Comment 1.68 is as dumb as me saying you need to shut up & keep your anti-Christ, anti-religious views to yourself. You can have your opinion and I can have mine. Somehow, we should find middle ground in this country of ours and live-and-let-live.

Have a good day!

concernedone

I think rocket science has your head spinning.

You wont give into the notion of NOT controlling others lives through your legislation because you bought the steering wheel already and damn, your going to stick it up some ones azz and steer them to your morality.

And you dont get it?

Chris:

Take your own advice. You are projecting.

LS:

It is a bad law. It does not "protect" women. It gives them power over others. Yes, there are people that still do immoral things even when they are against the law. That is not a compelling argument for legalizing (or maintaining the legalization) of that which is immoral. To outlaw abortion is to give protection to the child who is helpless and currently at the whimsical mercy of the mother. And, so far, all you have had to say on the matter is that it is legal. I recognize that fact. But it is a state of affairs that should be changed.

Karen:

No, the law can change -- though, sadly, it is unlikely. Precedent is sometimes rejected as itself being unconstitutional and the particular precedent does not follow the Constitution. It invents an imaginary "constitutional right" to an abortion. You will not find the right to an abortion anywhere in the Constitution, neither directly nor as a logical consequence.

For my part, I think that law will change, though I may not live to see it. The pro-abortion is too steeped in "don't look." Eventually, people are going to start looking at what abortion supporters want to keep hidden.

pvb - I work in the law and am telling you - YOU ARE WRONG. I'm not going to argue about it either because I am taking a break from the LEGAL WORK I have to do this evening.

I do understand the confusion - instead of saying "a" law, I should have said "this" law. But again, precedent is RARELY overturned.

concernedone - did God die and leave you in charge or something? How dare you judge me. Didn't God say take the sty out of your own eye before looking at other people's stys? HE DID. I assure you.

God told me that abortion is a choice up to the individual. Apparently he told you something different. I believe my God more than yours.

Somehow, we should find middle ground in this country of ours and live-and-let-live.

You have to be kidding.

Live and let live means leaving the choice up to the individual.

Get it? If not, I'm done.

Pvblivs

Chris:Take your own advice. You are projecting.

Really, I think that smoke and haze has fried your brain.

Pretending others say or do thing they didnt and dont, wont get you any points with the teacher.

Try an apple.

Karen in LA: Listen up Republicans. You need us independents to win...

LOL. Let me pause for a moment, and laugh, while Karen takes a moment away from hating gay people to try and convince us she isn't a rabid right-wing lowlife.

Karen In LA: Live and let live means leaving the choice up to the individual.

Oh really? Until it comes to gay marriage... Wow, you are such a coward, you change your tune with every topic!! LMFAO!!

That's Karen in LA, livin at the intersection of Hypocrite Street and Coward Avenue...

What does post 1.75 have to do with the topic at hand?

I am sorry that YOU feel so INSECURE that you attack other people.

And welcome the the world where everything is NOT BLACK OR WHITE.

I'm definitely in the shades of gray and make my OWN decisions and NEVER follow the crowd.

Comparing gay marriage to abortion or black rights is RIDICULOUS and is similar to comparing apples to oranges.

Didn't God say take the sty out of your own eye before looking at other people's stys? HE DID. I assure you.

Erm....not to be pedantic....but it was a "log" out of your own eye and "speck" in your brother's. You have the gist of it, though.

Karen in Los Angeles - What does post 1.75 have to do with the topic at hand?

......

Comparing gay marriage to abortion or black rights is RIDICULOUS and is similar to comparing apples to oranges.

There are several things in common - the concepts of privacy, personal sovereignty and individual liberty, as well as the notion that religious codes don't belong in our secular law.

Strange that you think your views about gays should be imposed on everyone through the law, but other people's views about abortion shouldn't be imposed on you.

The point you don't understand, THEY HAVE ALREADY HAVE THOSE RIGHTS.

Give it up. Gay marriage can not be compared to abortion rights.

PUH-LEEZ spare me with these crazy ideas.

Jack TX

I was raised Roman Catholic and that is exactly what the priest told me - a STY not a log.

What church taught you about logs?

I was raised Roman Catholic and that is exactly what the priest told me - a STY not a log.

What church taught you about logs?

You're referring to the 7th chapter of Matthew. Various English translations refer to different types of small pieces of wood. It's either a "speck" in more modern translations or "mote" in older ones, like the KJV. The Catholic Bible refers to a "splinter". The small piece of wood is in your brother's eye.

The large piece of wood is either a "log" or "plank" in modern translations or a "beam" in the older ones like KJV. The Catholic Bible simply says "great log". The large piece of wood is in the hypocrite's eye.

NASB:

"You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

KJV:

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Catholic.org

⁵ Hypocrite! Take the log out of your own eye first, and then you will see clearly enough to take the splinter out of your brother's eye.

Like I said, you got the gist of the point.

Karen in Los Angeles- I was raised Roman Catholic

That explains everything.

skrekk

What exactly did you add to this conversation? I'll answer - NOTHING.

Most people could care less about your negative posts towards other people, including me.

Instead of talking about ME, why don't you talk about YOU?

You should be an authority on YOU but you're no authority on me.

Only insecure people post comments like 1.82. Those people need psychiatric help.

Jack

What I learned was not what you posted. By the way, what is YOUR point?

I stand by what I said. That is what I learned. I never owned a Catholic Bible and we did not use it in catechism.

Take the sty out of your own eye first.

Maybe YOU could find something to contribute other than picking on something I said.

That explains everything.

C'mon. That's uncalled for.

What I learned was not what you posted. By the way, what is YOUR point?

My point was, as I said twice, you got the gist of the idea. I'm just trying to help you refer to it accurately. Alas. No good deed goes unpunished.

I'm sorry you're so defensive and angry.

Karen, while it's good to hear you support abortion rights it's a shame you doesn't understand what 71% of American Catholics do. Unlike you, when it comes to marriage most Catholics don't think their Sharia law should control the lives of other people. Most Catholics support marriage equality.

http://catholicsforequality.org/news_release/63-american-catholics-support-same-gender-civil-marriage

Do you support divorce, or are you inconsistent there too? Is it just abortion where you don't follow church teaching?

Concerned,

Except for the fact that you take your opinion of God and use it to attack people, telling them they're going to hell. Again, you miss the logic train. You take an issue like this, which is legal, get on here, and start spouting off about how God will do this, and God will do that.

1. You interjected your religion.

2. You used your religion to condemn those you don't know.

3. If you don't want to hear me knock your religion, don't try to interject it into our laws.

4. I have nothing to say about your religion, until you put your religion into my life.

5. I have nothing to say to you about my religion, until you put your religion into my life.

6. You judge and presume we're wrong, using your religion as proof. I discredited your assertion.

7. You made the assertion, you put it out there. All I did, was show how weak it was.

Jack TX - I apologize. I still do not agree.

To me, religion is very personal and so many people interpret or teach the same thing many many different ways. I can not even imagine 2 Roman Catholic priests in the same diocese to teach or preach the same way.

I guess my point was - to you, the expression is what you said it is and to me, the expression is what I said it is.

Karen, while it's good to hear you support abortion rights

Clarification - I SUPPORT CHOICE.

I did not read the rest of your post because while I was raised Catholic, I don't identify myself as Catholic.

My religion are the laws of physics. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Energy can not be created or destroyed, only transferred.

The last one is why I believe in a supreme energy source which I call God.

I also believe in the natural laws of the universe such as babies being created by male sperm and a female egg.

I also believe in the 10 Commandments. I am not exactly certain what happened to Moses (if that who "received them from God") but I do think that they are good rules to live by - such as don't murder anyone.

Karen in Los Angeles - I also believe in the natural laws of the universe such as babies being created by male sperm and a female egg.

You're confusing procreation with marriage. We don't deny marriage to the elderly or infertile, nor do we require a marriage license to have kids, much less obligate the married to have kids. Legal marriage is about property rights, not sex, and yet you'd deny those legal rights to gays.

I also believe in the 10 Commandments. I am not exactly certain what happened to Moses (if that who "received them from God") but I do think that they are good rules to live by - such as don't murder anyone.

Or at least you believe in a few of them - I doubt you follow or believe in them all. And yet you still think your religious laws should be forced on everyone through our secular law. That makes you no better than the Taliban.

Good to hear though that your faith is flexible enough to ignore your church's teaching on abortion.

What an interesting take. I say a natural law is that male sperm and a female egg are necessary to create a baby and someone else says I'm talking about marriage.

STOP ANALYZING ME.

All I said is that it is a natural law that it takes male sperm and female eggs to create babies.

PERIOD.

I need my friend to remind certain people that WE DON'T CARE WHAT PEOPLE'S OPINIONS OF OTHER PEOPLE ARE.

We do appreciate people POSTING THEIR OWN OPINIONS AND IDEAS instead of analyzing other people.

If you can not add your OWN opinions about a topic (not people) then you have no opinions. Wow, how sad is that. That some people's only existence is talking about other people.

Karen in Los Angeles - What an interesting take. I say a natural law is that male sperm and a female egg are necessary to create a baby and someone else says I'm talking about marriage.

I'm talking about the inconsistency of your views - first where you think your religion shouldn't be part of our secular law when it comes to abortion, second where you think your Sharia laws should be imposed on everyone when it comes to marriage. Apparently your notions of personal liberty and separation of church and state aren't very consistent. For abortion you think church and state should be separate, but not when it comes to legal marriage.

STOP ANALYZING ME.

LOL. Analyzing wack jobs and religious nuts like you is fun. I also love your silly claims about legal matters, which are inevitably wrong. I guess being a mail clerk in "entertainment law" doesn't get you very far.

skrekk

You are in no position to analyze me whatsover. Stop putting words in my mouth that I never said.

You don't know me at all.

KEEP ME OUT OF YOUR POSTS.

This is the last time I will bring this up. You have no clue how I think or feel PERIOD.

I am now putting you on the ignore list so I won't even see your posts going forward.

Talk to the hand.

karen in la: I was raised Roman Catholic

Ah, she's a supporter of the Pedophile Catholic Cult. That explains a lot right there...

bernwitch

Now I understand how Christians feel when persecuted.

You apparently did not read all my posts.

My religion is the laws of physics, natural law and the 10 Commandments. Since when is that Catholocism?

Further, even if I were a Catholic, how DARE you. You should wash your mouth out with soap over your nasty comment.

Religous freedom is guaranted by the very first Amendment to the US Constitution.

Religious freedom is one major reason we have a country. Puritans in England were tired of being prosecuted too.

How dare you. Your comment is very unAmerican.

Karen in Los Angeles - Religous freedom is guaranted by the very first Amendment to the US Constitution.

Yes it is. Too bad you don't really understand that, and want to force gays to live under your Sharia laws.

My religion is the laws of physics, natural law and the 10 Commandments. Since when is that Catholocism?

FYI, "natural law" is a Catholic concept which originated with Thomas Aquinas.

I love ignore buttons. It's so cool

KLA ain't too bright. Don't expect much from those who are BuyBull-Home-Schooled, or who walk the same talk. Not much goin on upstairs, but ya just gotta love her hypocrisy -- if Karen is nothing else, she's as two-faced as they come!

KEEP ME OUT OF YOUR POSTS.

Karen, if you want to be kept out of others' posts, STOP POSTING. It's that simple. You post on a public discussion forum, then whatever you post is subject to discussion. YOU have the right to express your opinions, just as WE have the right to tell you how wrong you are (which is nearly all the time, it seems).

just as WE have the right to tell you how wrong you are (which is nearly all the time, it seems).

Wow. That's the truth! You have her pegged!!

The uber liberal farce force in out in full effect.

Only insecure people talk about others.

They have nothing to offer except commenting on the wonderful ideas of others.

Their jealously is so unbecoming.

Wow. Talk about the Biggest POT MEET KETTLE moment i've ever seen on the Vine!

LMFAO!!

Well, as far as I am concerned, Karen has tacitly admitted that she has nothing of merit to say when she said "talk to the hand.

Karen, you don't have to argue with me. I am right, you are wrong. Since your fingers are firmly planted in your ears to support pro-abortion (not "pro-choice"; this proposed law would not interfere with choice, but it would interfere with the selling of abortion) it makes little sense to try to persuade you of anything.

Chris, just because you fancy yourself a teacher doesn't make you one. And it certainly doesn't make you mine. Also, I reiterate that you are projecting. You are guilty of that of which you accuse me.

I know the abusive laws in SD were recently struck down, but a lot of wingnut states have been trying to impose these laws.

I'm not even sure that their intent was for such a law to actually stay on the books for more than a year. I find it rather tough to believe when they craft a law that crazy that they don't expect it to get shot down after its eventual and possibly lengthy run in the courts.

If anyone can explain to me why someone would pass a law; they knew wouldn't stay a law... i'm curious if anyone has thought of something that I haven't yet. It could be to please the people that got them into office, but then again those same folks are likely picking up the tab for the legal fees of fighting a loosing court case.

If they really wanted to limit the amount of abortions in state, there are frankly many very legal routes they could of taken to achieve that. It basically amounts to people in the state traveling out of state to get the procedure, but states can regulate out of existence almost any service within their state.

Another unconstitutional Teabagger/Republican law bites the dust.

thull-998360 - If anyone can explain to me why someone would pass a law; they knew wouldn't stay a law... i'm curious if anyone has thought of something that I haven't yet.

The primary purpose for these abusive laws is to have the supreme court revisit Roe v Wade.

I disagree with skrekk - I think states know now that they can't force an overturn of Roe v. Wade. What they're doing now is what the gun control lobby learned to do a long time ago - they're probing, testing: "How much can we get this year? What can we get away with, with this court?" Death by a thousand cuts - a waiting period here, registration there, regulate an abortion clinic (or a gun store) out of business somewhere else, until it seems as though it happened overnight.

Shrekk & Angry Guy,

/edit: forgot to thank you for your replies

Seems you both agree on what is being done. People are trying a wide range of things and taking note of what works and under what reasons something is struck down.

The disagreement is whether this is buildup to waiting and preparing for an ideal precedent case that would make it back to the supreme court (and thus have more impact than any state law). OR they are regulating or placing overbearing demends on the industry in attempts to just get people to quit or leave under the circumstances they are creating in the state.

The first seems more likely, but it is also a fairly big jump that these current petty laws that they are passing have little chance to merit standing in their own state let alone get to the supreme court. The second option is quite possible, but it seems rather inefficient in that many of these laws mostly effect the patient and not the provider. Although whoever they harass, the end situation is the same where the patients just go to a neighboring state.

I agree with Angry Guy that part of the reason is a death by a thousand cuts, but it should be noted that the purpose for passing blatantly unconstitutional laws like the ones in TX and SD really is to get the abortion issue back in the federal courts, in the hope that one of these cases will reach a more conservative SCOTUS on appeal. The anti-choice groups which are behind this legislation (and which author many of these bills) have directly stated that. As this article notes, there's legal strategy on both sides regarding which cases to pursue:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/magazine/the-reincarnation-of-pro-life.html

Another purpose is simply political posturing by Republicans, for wingnut voting cred.

My body, My CHOICE. NOT 'My body, my Abortion' People whe are pro-choice ARE NOT pro-abortion. And, BTW, I have never had one, nor will I ever be 'in need' of one, either. And, for the record, people who easily have abortions are probably people who should not be raising children... And, believe me, those ladies are VERY few and far-between, anyway. It is usually a heart-rending decision for women to make.

We have laws that now require McDonalds warns us that the COFFEE IS HOT.

We have laws that now require a restaurant post the calorie count on menus.

We have laws that control way too many things.

When a woman is considering ending a new life, it seems someone should give a crap. God forbid she is shown the life within that she is about to end.

When you rot respect for life, life will not be valued.

Practical Libertarian - When a woman is considering ending a new life, it seems someone should give a crap. God forbid she is shown the life within that she is about to end.

A monumentally paternalistic view, especially since you're forcing the woman to pay for an unwanted, medically unnecessary procedure. And in the case of a trans-vaginal probe you're forcing the woman to pay for her own rape.

Women know exactly what abortion is. They don't need some bible-thumping wingnut legislature to force them to take and view a sonogram.

Maybe what we need instead is an informed consent form and a 24 hour waiting period for each and every Viagra pill. Give the men some thinking time before they do something they might regret......that would be appropriate for the state to require, right?

Betcha, betcha that Chaz Bono was advised FULLY of her options and the possible outcomes, pro and con, before her surgery.

Skrekk,

I love that idea. But can we also cut all insurance coverage that pays for Viagra? I mean, it's not like birth control or abortions are covered.

Practical,

Really, you're comparing warning labels and nutritional content to forced medical procedures.

Warning labels = Tools to limit the liability of a producer of goods. People can choose to follow them or not.

Nutrition Contents = Provide otherwise unknown information to people who choose to read them, or care about them.

Hmmmm, what's that word that keeps popping up... CHOICE. Nutritional labels don't force you to eat healthy, or force you to eat badly. Warning labels don't force you to blow dry your hair in a bath tub, or not stand on that little ledge at the top of the ladder.

Your argument ASSUMES...

1. That a fetus is a human baby. You got any peer reviewed scientific evidence of this?

2. That a woman having an abortion is completely stupid and unaware of her body. Are you a woman? Either way, how do you know what every women who ever had or ever will have an abortion knows about her body?

3. That forcing an unnecessary procedure on a woman will change her mind. Most likely, it will already make a difficult and in some cases traumatic choice, even harder.

betcha that Chaz Bono was advised FULLY of her options and the possible outcomes

Sure, but apart from an informed consent form did the state interfere with that?

No.

To most of the above,

THANK YOU!

While there is an anti-abortion movement in this country (and they have their Constitutionally-protected rights) there is NO such thing as as PRO-abortion movement, only pro-choice.

We cannot let the anti-abortionist/Evangelicals/anti-women's rights folk take control.

Good on you, Texas; and, extra good-on-you Judge Sparks!

Thanks Judge Sparks. Thanks for doing right.

Interesting that there is another article currently running concurrent to this one mentioning how the US ranks next to Quatar in infant mortality. I would rather see time and energy going into addressing those issues rather than attempting to rehash and overturn Roe v Wade. Perhaps focusing on the children and mothers here, their education and welfare rather than abortion issues would be more productive in the long run.

Do not paint an entire state with such a broad brush of bias and bigotry. There are millions of people living here.

You mean the rights of a doctor to deliberately withhold information from his patient so she will not cancel that surgery for which she was going to pay him $$$$$$$$$$$ and or he was going to force people like me to pay him $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

@littleoldlady3 -- I, too remember the days of the rusty coat hangers, back rooms, and dead girls. As much as I hate to see women get abortions, I vote every time I have to in order to keep Roe v. Wade a legal right for those who want it.

Keep abortion legal, keep abortion safe.

Those who really want to outlaw it should go after the biggest abortionist of them all - God. (More fetuses are miscarried than have ever been deliberately aborted.)

You are right how many of these pro-rapist and child molesters (my opinion) out their are adoptive/foster parents. The republicants say they are PRO-LIFE, but cut all programs to support unwanted children and single parents. They use the adage, they shouldn't be having sex and then again support Viagra but not free birth control!!

littleoldlady3, I agree wholeheartedly. Thousands of years later... and women are still being controlled. If we have sex, we're sluts. If we abstain, we're teases. Women are not allowed to make mistakes. Women are not allowed to be sexual creatures. What am I, then? A tease, a whore, or a normal kid who messes up?

If we have sex, we're sluts. If we abstain, we're teases

I know it seems that way in high school, but it'll get better when you grow up.

Rainlady:

Abortion is not safe. Every "fetus" forced to go through the procedure comes out dead. A 100 per cent mortality rate is not a safe procedure.

No it doesn't get better Atheismo. In fact ADULT men say this crap every day.

Littleoldlady: I too, remember the back-alley abortions and the deaths resulting from same. I came from the generation pre-Roe v Wade and remember some of the slogans that the pro-choice groups used against the vitriol of the anti-abortion crowd. Two of my favorites: 'If men could get pregnant abortion would be a sacrament" and "Anti-abortionists want to punish promiscuous poor people." It is interesting that the morality issue comes up so often. Then you have the anti-abortionists outside of clinics, mostly women screaming and name calling, with 'slut' used quite often.

I wish we lived in a perfect world, I don't like abortions but I also don't like the aftermath of child abuse and neglect.

littleoldlady4: There are more Problem Pregnancy Clinics than Abortion facilities, even thogh the former make NO PROFIT and the latter rakes in scads of dough. MANY MANY prolifers adopt, despite the lies on this and other threads that they do not. Abortion in the back alley was unsafe and it is still unsafe in the abortion facilities of today, it's just covered up more by the biased media.--------Mygirl1: I have picketed so-called clinics since Roe v. Wade and I have NEVER heard any woman entering called a slut. However, I have been called a slut. Also, child abuse and neglect is FAR more extensive now than before Roe v. Wade.

MiBia,

They'll still say it, but you'll eventually get to the point where you don't give a flying fazoo. Do what you want responsibly and tell them to "blow it out their as($%*". Men who make, believe, and perpetuate those stereotypes aren't men at all. They're cowards, with little pee pees, who are intimidated by strong, independant women. And the women who buy into them are cowards with low self-esteem, who rely on men for their confidence. Anyone who gives a crap about another's legal sexual activity is pretty pathetic in my book.

Matilda: Where do you get your numbers re child abuse and neglect? So, you have picketed those clinics and have never heard a woman called a slut? Then the group you were picketing with was not the norm. As to the poor medical quality of abortions done in clinics, I have seen no statistics or articles covering that. What I do remember is that since abortions were illegal, women going to the hospital for septicemia as a result of a botched abortion face criminal prosecution. So, you want to go back to those wonderful days?

And Perry wants to be YOUR President!!!!!

If that's not a reason to vote I don't know what is!

Weird...

Don't statistics show that most anti-abortion fold are pro death-penalty??

Seems like it. Its an "interesting" logical position.

Occam's razor is not always so sharp. I myself am pro-choice and support capital punishment.

VT:

I don't know about most. I personally am anti-abortion and anti-death-penalty. But then, I'm one of those strange people that think that killing people (barring mitigating circumstances like self-defense) is wrong. And it doesn't matter how much you don't like the person and don't want the person around.

Not everyone confuses a blastocyst with a person.

skrekk:

There was a time where not everyone a slave with a person either. However, abortion normally takes place well past the blastocyst stage. I'm sure abortion suppoters would have no objection to the doctor saying that he sees a tiny sphere.

There was a time where not everyone a slave with a person either. However, abortion normally takes place well past the blastocyst stage.

It also takes place well before the Baby Stage. Yet, the anti-choice cowards have sucha weak argument, that they must rely on lies and histrionics in order to make an argument. So, they shriek about baby-killers, murder, etc etc etc -- when it is none of these things.

Most abortions DO take place at much earlier stages, at the zygote/blastocyst/embryo stages.

Most of the rightwing cowards are liars, and simply cannot accept that fact.

Bermitch:

No, they don't really take place before the baby stage. But supporters will not admit it and don't want people to see with their own eyes.

You speak of cowards that have such a weak argument that they must resort to lies. But I see them coming from the pro-abortion side. The very term "anti-choice" is a lie. I'm sure that you will agree that we should not listen to anyone who uses "anti-choice" in place of "anti-abortion." At least, you will if you are as opposed to lies as you claim.

My apologies. I read your screenname wrong.

Being a proponent of life does not make one a coward. Categorizing "all" people of a certain belief with broad strokes makes you a bigot.

I know of no conservative or liberal who believes in life also supporting the death penalty.

If you live your life by headlines and polls and stereotypes, you're an idiot.

Practical Libertarian - Being a proponent of life does not make one a coward.

No, but thinking you should control someone else's body makes you an authoritarian.

Actually, How can people say they are pro-choice?

News flash. Having sex causes pregnancy. This is no secret. So when a woman chooses to have sex, she has chosen to risk the pregnancy.
Abortion isnt about the right of a woman to choose. She had already choosen. She choose to have sex and accepted the risk of the pregnancy. Reality is, more woman would choose to not have sex if they couldnt get out of the risks by having an abortion.

Abortions also are performed at week 26 in the United States. At week 6, the Fetus has a heartbeat and a pulse. And at week 23, it has fingerprints.

So lets be clear here. Woman who choose to have sex, have choosen to accept the consequences of that choice. So if we are truly going to support a woman's right to choose, let us educate on the consequences of that choice, then hold them responsible for that choice. Let us not then allow them to escape the consequences of their actions.

The supreme court ruled in favor of abortion in 1975 because the technology didnt exist to show when a fetus even got a heartbeat or fingerprints. If Roe V Wade were to be retried today, with all the scientific information we have, Abortions would be illegal as they violate the constitutions protection of right to life.

I was pro-choice up until I realized two important facts. One, the Father has no choice, why isnt his rights being protected? And two, a pregancy is counted from the last day of a woman's period. Most woman cant even conceive a child until 2 weeks later, and that 4 short weeks after conception, the fetus has a heartbeat and a pulse. From that moment on, I was pro-life. Why, because I am pro-constitution!

I agree, Tigger! Good points!

One, the Father has no choice, why isnt his rights being protected?

Abortion and pregnancy both have medical risks that the woman has to decide if she is willing and able to undertake. The man doesn't have the same medical risks with a pregnancy or an abortion that the woman does, hence the choice to abort or not abort is the woman's choice. Yes, I would hope that if the situation permits, the woman includes the man in that choice - but ultimately, the choice is up to her. In fact,the woman often does include the man in the choice - one of the top sited reasons for having an abortion is because it's what the man wants.

I could respond to the rest of your post - but, they are your opinions and you have the right to your opinions.

I consider myself pro-choice. Yes, I would like to see less unplanned/unwanted pregnancies - and thus, see less abortions. I would like to see abortion be a rarely made choice.

Myself, if I were to get pregnant again, I would abort. Not because I don't want more kids - I love children, and would love to have another child. However, due to severe complications with my previous pregnancies, I can't safely carry a child to viability, let alone to term. Suffice it to say, being pregnant again would literally kill me and the fetus well before the fetus could be born - and it would result in my two children loosing their only parent. That said, because I know this - I have had my tubes tied and take birth control. Furthermore, because I'm not in a solid, committed relationship - I don't have sex right now. So, there is no chance of me getting pregnant currently. For me, having an abortion - if the tubal and birth control failed - would be a life saving choice, not a pleasant choice.

Summer:

The presence of heartbeat and fingerprints is not an opinion.

Now, I'm going to tell you why I think the "medical risks" line is a smokescreen. Planned Parenthood refers women to abortionists. There is no medical consideration because the people making the referrals have no medical training and the abortionists will perform the abortions no matter what.

Pvblis: You are right, the heartbeat and fingerprints are not an opinion - I address some of this on another post elsewhere.

You really think medical risks are a smoke screen? Well, let's see - I've had two children. Love them dearly - will never have another child. Giving birth to my oldest, I developed ecclampsia (had seizures, hypertension, edema to the point that I couldn't urinate and developed kidney infections, etc.), that required an emergency c-section. During the emergency c-section, my heart stopped and I stopped breathing requiring resuscitation. Then I developed a systemic infection during the recovery in which I was hospitalized for 4.5 months after the birth of my son - nearly dying during this. With my youngest son, I hemorrhaged and had to receive 12 units of blood. While these are rare complications - they are real complications and real medical risks of pregnancy (there are other more common complications that what I had).

There are medical risks of abortion also. These medical risks - while rare for both pregnancy and abortion are real, and the woman takes these risks - thus, it is the woman's right and even responsibility to determine which of these risks she is willing and able to take.

Furthermore - "abortionists" are ob/gyn's - they are physicians that have undergone a lot of training - they will provide abortions according to the laws. Having worked with PP, the clinics that do not provide abortions and make referrals, utilize medically trained individuals to do the counseling with the women prior to referring them. The clinics that do provide abortions use medically trained individuals to counsel the women prior to the abortion. Women are counseled on all of their options - keeping the pregnancy and being a parent, keeping the pregnancy and giving the resulting child up for adoption, and abortion. I've never seen a woman pressured to make one decision over another at PP (though I have seen them be pressured at pregnancy crisis centers that focus on pro-life positions).

Tigger,

Sooo, where does the responsibility for men lay? If women choose sex, we automatically choose pregnancy. When men choose sex, they what? The same reason we get "choice" is the very point you're making right there, in your first paragraph. Men can walk away. Their health isn't at risk. Their lives aren't turned upside down. They don't have the psychological burdens. According to you, women get all those things, and also bit($%* at for choosing abortion.

Yes, I think medical risk is a smokescreen. Specificly, I think it is brought up to sound like the high road but is generally not part of the actual motivation to an abortion. Very few abortions are performed by the doctor that was monitoring the pregnancy to ensure there were no complications. If medical risk were a predominant factor, the abortion clinics would go out of business.

Pvblivs: So your position is there are no risks to pregnancy? If so, you are woefully misinformed about pregnancy. Like I said, complications are rare (relatively speaking) - however, they are still real and still happen. Just as complications with abortion are rare, but still real and still happen. Since there are real medical risks with both a pregnancy and with abortion that the woman experiences, what to do is up to the woman.

My position is that actual risks in pregnancy and childbirth are not sufficient to sustain the abortion industry as an industry in its own right. My further position is that medical risks are used as an excuse by people who want an abortion for reasons having nothing to do with any possible medical risks. When abortions are only perfomed by doctors who have been monitoring the pregnancy from its inception, I will stop regarding the talk of "medical risks" as a smokescreen.

Pvblivs: That's your right to hold that position. What I'm saying is that there are real risks w/ pregnancy and abortion - which of those risks the woman is willing to take on is her decision. You may not agree with her decision - but, it is her decision. Many abortions are performed by the doctors that have monitored the pregnancy from the discovery of the pregnancy - not all are.

Calm down there Bernie, I read Eric's statement as referring to the law that was struck down, not the judge's verdict. After all, the court system has nothing to do with jobs and their creation.

I dont disagree -- but people drive me crazy when they make that One Issue argument. I agree that jobs are a problem, but it's NUTS to suggest that everything else should stop until THAT One Issue is fixed!

In this case though, a lot of time and resources were spent getting this ridiculous law on the books instead of concentrating on TRUE problems.

HAHA I agree Eric thanks!

Eric:

No one is telling a woman what she can do with her own body. But, just as the woman is not an extension of the man's body, the "fetus" is not an extension of the woman's body. If she wants to cut off her foot (for example) I will not act to stop her. Somehow, most abortion supporters would. That is, they don't believe in their own argument.

Poor eric - you do know that Texas has created more jobs than any 20 states during the Great Recession, right?

Yes, TX created quite a few government jobs, and the rest considerably low wage/no benefit. And as their cash cow, aka federal funding, comes to a grinding halt along with everyone else - they'll be laying off those folks soon enough.

I cannot believe this law was not LAUGHED AT as soon as it showed its ugly face. Its scary! What country do we live in again?
I'm tired of backwards Religious terrorists trying to control what a woman does with her body.

To maker the women PAY for this unwanted, spiteful sonogram was just rubbing salt in the wound. How un Chrisitian and disgusting.

The thing always missing from these abortion killer lovers is that one of the reasons our economy is in the tank is due to all of the people that we have allowed to be killed over the past nearly 40 years. Think of the millions of taxpayers that are not alive today because we so protect the right to kill.

Just saying, it just seems a bit off that we so easily end life and protect every aspect of this process more so than any other medical procedure on earth, and here we are $14+ trillion in debt, wondering what happened. There is an economic aspect to this business of death.

The thing always missing from these abortion killer lovers is that one of the reasons our economy is in the tank is due to all of the people that we have allowed to be killed over the past nearly 40 years.

LOL.....the state should force women to give birth to rescue the economy? I presume you also oppose birth control.

What blithering nonsense.

Unless of course any of them ended up on government assistance, or their mothers did, right Pvb???

HAHAHAHAHA

"Practical" that is the most ludicrous thing I've read in a long time. Women are not baby factories.

Time to put your helmet back on....i

The judge was flat out wrong and had no legal basis for the ruling

Errr, ummmm, well, the Constitution of the United States was the basis of his ruling, so you're "flat out wrong", and I can show you in 2 clicks how you're wrong. You could do that yourself too, if you cared about the facts in this case.

I say "if you cared about the facts" because the article spelled out the judge's reasoning more than once - perhaps anticipating that some people may not absorb it the first time. So you missed it both times huh? Maybe consider brushing up on your reading comprehension or take more care with what you read or how you respond.

I don't know...if those suggestions don't help I don't know what will.

It's time for states and localities to put federal judges in their place.

OK, Mike, do you know how our system of government works?

Why do you hate America so much?

Sorry Mike, it isn't murder.

Cheers!

Oh -- and, go pound sand.

No legal basis? Wow, I didn't know our Constitution's First Amendment had become so worthless.

The state cannot compel someone to communicate something to someone else (doctors, by showing the patient a picture), nor can the state compel someone to receive possibly unwanted communication (forcing the patient to look at it). Sorry, this is the United States, not a communist country.

I love how hypocritical you moralists are -- out of one corner of your mouth you preach about how the government is too big and powerful, then out of the other corner you back them when they try to legislate morality. You can't even bring a consistent governing philosophy to the table.

Craig,

No...the women who are responsible for the pregnancy is gonna look after them. Like I told my two daughters....Keep your legs closed....men are pigs and will leave you holding the bag. Act responsibly.

Andy,

Constitution of the US does not allow murder anywhere I can see. Please feel free to point out the article where it does...in case I missed it.

Bern,

Yes it is. Cheers!

Regards to all,

Mike

Murder is a felony. Period.

Abortion is legal. Period.

Get over yourself. Stop being a goddam coward. If your argument has merit, then you wouldn't need to continually tell lies to sensationalize your position.

Have the courage to stop telling lies, Mike. Get an argument that has MERIT, without getting your cowardice involved in order to inflate your story. If your argument has merit, then you won't need to use the cowardly avenue of making up stories and telling lies to try and win people over.

Dan,

I thought about your post and I agree. Texas should immediately jail any doctor attempting to perform an abortion for attempted murder with the mother as an accessory. If the act is completed, then jail them both for murder and accessory.that takes care of the 1st amendment issues.

I apologize.you were right.

Regards,

Mike

Sorry Mike, abortion is not murder. Murder is a legal term, and its definition is well established. I know you feel abortion is murder, but it's not, and no amount of saying it will make it so.

No one is forcing you or your wife or girlfriend or whatever to have an abortion. You can believe whatever you like and you can do whatever you like in your own life. But, when it comes to governing, you can't legislate morality, and you don't get to choose for everyone. You don't get to impose your beliefs on me or my wife or my girlfriend.

That's just the way it is. So says our laws and so says the Supreme Court of the United States.

I recommend that you stop trying to impose your beliefs on everyone else. You will be a lot happier if you do...and so will everyone else I suspect.

Someone must be alive before they can be "murdered". In the vast majority of elective abortions, there is no living being. Everyone defines "life" in different terms; not even science or the AMA will pinpoint the exact moment life exists. Therefore we will always have a disagreement to whether abortion is murder, and that is purely based on opinion. So thankful law isn't dictated by opinion.

I thought about your post and I agree. Texas should immediately jail any doctor attempting to perform an abortion for attempted murder with the mother as an accessory

Actually, Mike, you didn't THINK at all! Because there is no law to support the custodial arrest, or the charges you described.

And oddly, even though mutliple people keep telling you otherwise, you keep telling these cowardly lies of yours!

Mike: as much as you would want to keep women from constitutional rights of privacy, you can't (even in Texas, it would seem.) Wow...never thought I'd see the day of ANYTHING respecting women coming out of Texas...It's about TIME!!

Mike, in a perfect world abortion would only be legal in the cases of rape, incest, or the health of the women. In a perfect world all children would be loved. Unfortunately the world isn't perfect, abortion is legal, and if it weren't some of these women would risk their lives to have "black market" abortions. That's why we have a Constitution, to protect people from idiots like Governor Perry and his merry band of nut jobs.

No...the women who are responsible for the pregnancy is gonna look after them. Like I told my two daughters....Keep your legs closed....men are pigs and will leave you holding the bag. Act responsibly.

So, Mike, what if one of your daughters were raped? What if that rape resulted in a pregnancy. Oh, my!! Your daughters didn't keep their legs closed!! How dare they!! What then? What do you do now???? Are you really going to FORCE your daughters to carry a child that was conceived out of hate and anger?

You have this crazy misconception that abortion is used as willy nilly as birth control. Well, it's really not! And frankly, abortion is LEGAL!!! Get over it!

You know what, people like Mike don't care about facts or people or responsibility or governing. What they care about are their own internal emotions and sensibilities, and they care about these things even when "feeling better" (as in banning abortion altogether) comes at the expense of other people's lives.

They don't care that the once rampant crime in this country began declining 16 to 18 years after Roe v. Wade and steadily declined for 20 years thereafter to such a degree that even though we are in the toughest economic time since the Great Depression, there is no spike in crime.

They don't care that there are no longer millions of unwanted and unloved children in this country. They don't care that families are best left to decide for themselves when to have children, or even if.

The bottom line is that they care about themselves. The facts be damned. Women be damned. Children be damned. Everyone be damned...as long as they get their way.

Sorry, we are not going to move backward. We've been there and done that and it did not work. We know better now. I am so glad I'm not you! You can hoot and holler and pass silly local laws all you want, but the vast, vast majority of people know these laws will not stand, and if one of them were to "stand", some of those in that vast majority would begin speaking out and acting out to end the silly anti-abortion ploys of the conservative right. I think you think you are a majority, but I am confident that you are, in fact, a tiny minority.

THe supremacy of the US Consitution and federal law over state laws is not in question, half-wit. It's spelled out explicitly in the supremacy clause of the Constitution, which every state ratified or agreed to when it joined the US.

Like I told my two daughters....Keep your legs closed....men are pigs and will leave you holding the bag. Act responsibly.

...after I picked myself up off the floor...

Mike thinks he dispenses good advice to his daughters. It should be obvious by the fact that I can put two coherent sentences together that I disagree.

Thumbs up if you think Mike's advice is going to backfire - one way or the other.

...and it's 'Andrew', not 'Andy'. I'm pretty sure I did not call you 'Mikey' in some sophomoric attempt at condescension, and I assume you have the capacity to return the favor.

Mike sounds like another Scott Roeder. Such people should be on a very short leash.

AP-1414066 - Wow...never thought I'd see the day of ANYTHING respecting women coming out of Texas...It's about TIME!!

It's not a coincidence that some of the most important civil rights rulings - like Lawrence v Texas - arise due to laws in Texas.

The bigots and Christofascists in Texas are clueless about how much good they've inadvertently done for the entire country.

Andrew,

Sorry if I offended you by use of "Andy."

For all others,
Sorry, I believe that upon conception, there is a human life. Therefore, an abortion becomes murder. The only time that we can get away with that with any kind of moral basis, is when a doctor makes a decision, like triage...to save the mother.

If my daughter got raped, I would take care of her and help her raise the child. It's not the child's fault as to his circumstances of conception.

I find it very interesting that folks are so nasty when it comes to defending the "right" to take human life.

Bern,

There are laws whereby citizens can act to prevent a crime.

Regards,

Mike

Way to absolve males of all responsibility for their actions, Mikey. Indeed, men are not persons, they've got no brain, no mind and no common sense, they are, in fact a walking incoherent penis. They're even less than animals, is that it, Mikey? So when they beat, rape and murder, they're not really responsible, it's just their nature and the world should cater to their nature and pay for their mistakes!

Great Mike, now go enjoy your beliefs and leave the rest of the populace alone to decide their beliefs/choices.

I find it very interesting that folks are so nasty when it comes to defending the "right" to take human life.

I think it's because you don't have any qualms about imposing your beliefs onto others no matter what others may believe, and about an issue for which there is no "one size fits all" solution, no consensus about what is "good" or "bad" or "right" or "wrong". We tried the "abortion is illegal" route and it did not work. The image of government in a free society telling people what they can and can't do regarding matters of family planning and healthcare issues between themselves and their doctor is particularly offensive, and trying to pass off your way as the only way is offensive to anyone who does not agree and/or can think for themselves.

You can't accuse people of your own personal definition of murder without getting people upset. It's just not how things work. You don't get to legislate morality...as I said before. I think you can imagine why doing so would upset people.

Mike...

And some people beleive in the tooth fairy. Should we base laws around that as well?

And, you know every human cell is a potential life...so, why don't we ban showers?

Also...it's a funny thing about beliefs...let's discuss, shall we? Not a single pro-choice supporter would force a women to have an abortion but it is the stated agenda of all anti-abortionists to prevent women from having abortions. Is it too hard for your little brain to grasp? One group wants to force its beliefs on others while the other group doesn't. Do you get it or are you really that pea-brained?

Quite a lot of dangerous reasoning in this section. Let's be careful to avoid...

Are you going to look after all these unloved kids?

I would submit that this is insufficient and unimportant criteria as the basis for deciding whether or not to abort a pregnancy.

The state cannot compel someone to communicate something to someone else (doctors, by showing the patient a picture), nor can the state compel someone to receive possibly unwanted communication (forcing the patient to look at it). Sorry, this is the United States, not a communist country.

Erm....I think you'll find they can...and do. The state can require any person or entity to notify any other person or entity. The state requires us all to register for selective service. It requires employers to notify workers of COBRA rights, it requires us to notify the IRS how much money we made....and now thanks to the new healthcare law....how much we paid out to certain people. Doctors are required to notify their patients about potential risks of procedures. Indeed "required notification" is a popular government requirement.

as much as you would want to keep women from constitutional rights of privacy, you can't (even in Texas, it would seem.) Wow...never thought I'd see the day of ANYTHING respecting women coming out of Texas...It's about TIME!!

Requiring them to watch a video or some other piece of anti abortion propaganda is not actually a breech of privacy, unless of course you require them to do it in public. You'll notice the judge said the law violated free speech rights, not privacy rights.

As for respect for women coming out of Texas, you should spend some time here. Respect for women is the norm, and we've been doing it a hell of a lot longer than most other places. We elected our first woman governor in 1925... 75 years before Massachusetts elected theirs. We've sent women to the state house three different times, which puts us three ahead of NY and California. Phyllis Schlafly lives in Illinois. Watch out, those stereotypes will getcha.

They don't care that there are no longer millions of unwanted and unloved children in this country.

I think you'll find there actually still are millions of unwanted and unloved children in this country....which is sad.

They don't care that the once rampant crime in this country began declining 16 to 18 years after Roe v. Wade and steadily declined for 20 years thereafter to such a degree that even though we are in the toughest economic time since the Great Depression, there is no spike in crime.

I've not seen actual evidence to suggest that legalizing abortions has any causal relationship with the crime rate. This seems a little difficult to follow, especially when the last 30 years have seen so much "tough on crime" legislation.

So, Mike, what if one of your daughters were raped? What if that rape resulted in a pregnancy. Oh, my!! Your daughters didn't keep their legs closed!! How dare they!! What then? What do you do now???? Are you really going to FORCE your daughters to carry a child that was conceived out of hate and anger?

As egregious as you will no doubt find it, if Mike is true to his beliefs, then yes, he would demand his daughter have the child. Anti-abortion folks believe that as soon as that child is conceived, it's a human life. One would not execute a 2 yr old because his father raped his mother. In true pro-life logic that 3 week old embryo is as alive as a 2 yr old and is entitled to the same right to live.

Jack TX:

I'm not sure what to make of your charge of "dangerous reasoning". My reasoning is sound.

Andrew547:

They don't care that there are no longer millions of unwanted and unloved children in this country.

Jack TX:

I think you'll find there actually still are millions of unwanted and unloved children in this country....which is sad.

Prior to Roe v. Wade, women either traveled out of the country for an abortion, had an illegal abortion, or had the unwanted child. There were millions of unwanted kids born to those without the means to seek one of the first two remedies. Therefore, millions of unwanted kids are no longer born because more women have access to family planning services, including abortion. I never said there are no unwanted children.

Andrew547:

They don't care that the once rampant crime in this country began declining 16 to 18 years after Roe v. Wade and steadily declined for 20 years thereafter to such a degree that even though we are in the toughest economic time since the Great Depression, there is no spike in crime.

Jack TX:

I've not seen actual evidence to suggest that legalizing abortions has any causal relationship with the crime rate. This seems a little difficult to follow, especially when the last 30 years have seen so much "tough on crime" legislation.

I have. You can too. Econometric analysis is a beautiful thing.

Try Google Scholar for "crime linked to abortion". You will find dozens of results.

So, in short, a non-living human has more rights as a human being than a living, breathing woman? I wonder how much rights a woman, or more specifically, a pregnant woman has, according to these people? Obviously not the full value of a human...perhaps she's worth a portion of a person? Maybe something like 3/5's of a person?

Mike, I was born and grew up Catholic, personally I believe abortion is terrible and a sin. Having said that I am also pro choice because I am wholeheartedly PRO AMERICA. As an American I believe everybody has the right to think and make their own decisions for themselves, they should not have to their decisions based on my or anybody else religious beliefs. The government has no right to stick their nose,s in anybodies medical decisions. The have no Constitutional right to do so. Also I think it's terrible that a state that's only birth control allowed to be taught is abstinence wants to make rule's like this on abortion. What they need to do is stop trying to legislate morallity and come up with a real jobs policy. I mean how can Perry poach jobs from other states if he's prisident. And by the way poaching jobs does not create jobs it only transfers them from one state to the other.

Sorry, I believe that upon conception, there is a human life. Therefore, an abortion becomes murder.

Yay for you! In your head, you can BELIEVE what you like. But, no matter what your BELIEF is, you do not have the right or the authority to make someone a felony murderer, who is not a felony murderer.

But then again, people like you think mythology and cultism is fact. So, i can see how you reach these ridiculous conclusions here...

If abortion is murder, is a woman who drinks while pregnant committing child abuse? Should she be thrown in jail?

AP-1414066 - Wow...never thought I'd see the day of ANYTHING respecting women coming out of Texas...It's about TIME!!

I just remembered that Roe v Wade is itself a Texas case.

Everyone should thank the ignorant wingnuts and Christofascists in Texas for their very horrible and benighted laws which create our important nationwide precedents.

Skrekk,

Yes, but also remember that this is the state where these cases originate, and it is not inevitable that Roe v Wade will stand forever, so your proverbial victory lap should be tempered by a dose of sober reality in that there is no guarantee abortion rights will be maintained forever, and no guarantee that the challenge to Roe won't come from a Southern state.

Jeffro,

Thank you. Just when I begin to lose faith that anyone gets it, somebody always does. Your post is the epitome of America.

Mike,

Go read post 11.27. You could learn a lot from him. Furthermore, keep your beliefs out of my body. I don't know what's more scary, the drivel that comes out of your judgmental mouth, or the fact that you raised daughters.

Texas needs to ignore the judge's ruling and continue in accordance with it's law.

Ok, good luck with that. Let's see far that goes.

The judge was flat out wrong and had no legal basis for the ruling.

What makes you more of an expert on legal matters than a judge?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with requiring someone to look at a picture of the life they are about to help murder

Sure there is: you're forcing someone to undergo a procedure they may not want. That's unethical. Besides, what if they did look at the picture and decided to abort anyway? Would that make it an acceptable decision to you then?

Constitution of the US does not allow murder anywhere I can see. Please feel free to point out the article where it does...in case I missed it.

Abortion isn't murder under the law. So your argument fails.

Yes it is. Cheers!

Merely your opinion, and one in which the law and others here disagree with. So what makes your opinion more valid than established law?

I believe that upon conception, there is a human life.

Key word here is "belief." You are entitled to believe whatever you want. But your beliefs do not equal fact or establish jurisprudence.

Therefore, an abortion becomes murder.

Not according to the law it doesn't.

It's not the child's fault as to his circumstances of conception.

It's not the mother's fault either and she shouldn't be forced to carry a pregnancy that was forced on her if she chooses. Fortunately, she still has that right to choose.

Warts don't have beating hearts!

Ted Bundy had a beating heart.

How far does your stupid analogy go, evanusk?

A heart rate does not a living being make. Ever hear of the term "dead on the vent"? A human can be quite dead and still maintain a pulse, even as the body begins to decompose while attached to said vent.

Bernitch, Mother Theresa and Obama had/have a beating heart...how far does your idiotic analogy go Burpsnitch?

"Bernitch, Mother Theresa and Obama had/have a beating heart...how far does your idiotic analogy go Burpsnitch?"

Wow, another moron incapable of following a simple logical argument heard from. He was arguing that a beating heart does not imply a meaningful human life. That SOME beating hearts do does not refute his point.

So many idiots on the Internet.

Mark, you have proved the idiot part. Explain to us how you determine "a worthwhile life" before it is conceived. Obviously, your parents couldn't do it!

Everyone has a right to life, including you Tiredofsilly. Bernitch, what they do with that life, God will judge. Any mother could be aborting a future criminal, or someone who might have found a cure for cancer someday. It's impossible to know. We are not God, and have no right to take a life. Good point, Bob.

Evan, based on their comments, I think they think have the ability to determine at conception, whether a life is worth saving, Infortunatly, Tired and Billybobs, Mom's did not when she made the mistake with them.

Even those two have the right to be alive, although they don't respect other people's right to be born. Unfortunately, we have to deal with them! If you can't talk sense into someone, you can pray for God to open their eyes.

evanusk - God will judge.

Thankfully your imaginary friend is irrelevant to our laws.

Skrekk, I can't tell you what to believe, but look honestly at Tiredofsilly's remark about an abortion being like a wart removal, and you will see a total disrespect for life. It's an absurd comment. I have had freinds and acquaintences who have had abortions and the vast majority of them have agonized over the decision, most regretting it afterwards. I don't even believe that most women who don't regret their abortions thought of the baby inside them the same as they would a wart!

evanusk - look honestly at Tiredofsilly's remark about an abortion being like a wart removal, and you will see a total disrespect for life. It's an absurd comment.

Not everyone confuses a blastocyst with a baby.

And thinking adults don't try to use the government to force their Sharia laws on everyone else .

I hardly think prohibiting abortion, which involves the taking of a developing human life compares with Sharia law, and thinking adults know that a blastocyst is extremely more complex than a wart, to say the least. The least you could do would be to consider the fact that you could be wrong about when to call it a human life, and to err on the side of protecting a life is better than to take life. So many infertile couples want to adopt and there is a shortage of babies available. Many of these couples would pay all the expenses of the pregnant mother. I've known people who did that. At least consider that this might be an option for some people. Also, there is such a thing as birth control. People ought to use that if they don't want a baby.

I'd like to add that a blastocyst is an embryo which hasn't even implanted into the uterine wall yet, a stage in which most women don't even know they are pregnant, so an abortion not be taking place at this early stage. The embryo implants at around six to twelve days. A heartbeat is detectable around four weeks, and you can clearly see eyes, arms and legs at eight weeks.

evanusk - I hardly think prohibiting abortion, which involves the taking of a developing human life compares with Sharia law

If your religious doctrine is the basis for a law, it's Sharia law. Same thing with bans on gay marriage - your bizarre cult simply doesn't belong in our secular law. Keep your cult to yourself, and don't try to force it on everyone else by using the government.

So many infertile couples want to adopt and there is a shortage of babies available.

So what? You can't force a woman to carry to term and risk her own life and health in the process. Neither you nor government should be violating her bodily sovereignty. If you try to do that you'll just end up with lots of back-alley abortions as we had prior to Roe v Wade.

Cult? I'm not basing anything on a religious doctrine. Look at a picture at even six weeks gestational age and you will see arms and legs, and at eight weeks, you'll see fully formed fingers and toes. That's obviously a developing human being. Also, very few abortions are performed because the mother's life is is danger. If there is a risk, then it becomes a medical matter between a woman and her doctor to make a decision about whether her life is in danger. That's different than getting an abortion simply because the baby is an inconvenience.

Fortunately in this country women get to decide the fate of their own bodies and whether to carry to term, and decide for themselves why, whether, and when to have an abortion.

If it's not your body, it's not your business.

What about the body of the life growing inside her, who has no say? Who protects it? It is not merely a part of her body, but rather a separate person growing inside of her body. Should she have the right to decide the fate of another person. Not all laws are good laws. I don't believe legalized abortion is a good law, and I have to speak out against it, whether you or anyone else doesn't like that.

hey Shrekk.Interesting point. Its not my body, I have no say. Great. It is my money, I should have a say. If I am dating a girl, we are using protection and she gets pregnant anyway. I should have an equal right to the decision, after all it did take both of us to create the pregnancy. If I want the child, I should be allowed the opportunity to raise it, and if I dont want the child, and she chooses to keep it, I shouldnt be held Financially responsible. Why is it that she can decide for me? I have the right in this country to make decisions for myself just like she does. The fact is, we both knew the risk, and accpted that risk when we choose to have sex! The choice was already made, we should have to live with the consequence. I wonder how many people would choose not to have sex if they knew they would be forced into parenthood because of it.
And I wonder how many single women on welfare who go out and have more kids so they could get more childsupport and more welfare would not do so, if the father's had the abiltiy to say, nope, I wanted it aborted, so I am not finacially responsible? Abuse of laws happen no matter what we do, but I would rather the abuse happen in favor of life, then against it!!!!

It is not merely a part of her body, but rather a separate person growing inside of her body.

Actually, it is a part of the body as it cannot exist outside of the womb!

Do I tell you where to shop? What to buy? What to eat? What to wear? What to read? What to watch on TV? Nope! And yet so many feel they have the right to tell a woman that she HAS to have a child that she may not be able to take care of or even love. What if this child were conceived out of anger and hate?

I know I will never convince a Pro-Lifer to see my way, but Pro-Lifers also need to realize that they will never convert a Pro-Choicer. Abortion is legal! That is a fact that must be accepted!

No Evan I have a high regard for life. I do not think abortion is taking a life. Simple enough for you?

Abortion is legal. Untill it is outlawed, it should be left alone.

I am not worried about some god judging me, if any god wanting things changed, he or she would show up in person.

What I have a low regard for? Conservatives, and Liberals. Both groups care nothing about people, just control.

We need to get back to repubs and dems, and dump extremes.

evanusk - I don't believe legalized abortion is a good law...

Then you're incredibly naive and historically ignorant. Women will get abortions whether they're legal or not, just as they always have. But if they're illegal more women will be injured or killed, and more existing children will learn that their mother died because of an illegal abortion. More women will die carrying risky pregnancies to term, and more unwanted children will be brought into an already overpopulated world, adding to the burden of families struggling to make ends meet.

Tigger & Evan,

Here's the point you missed... You can't, by any means, prove that a fetus is a life, a baby, a human... You take your limited concepts of science, mix in a little religion, and voila, you have your belief. Which is fine, that's your right. Believe away. However, I have some rights here too. Most notably that I get to be free from your beliefs.

You lack a compelling state interest, that is based in substantial scientific reasoning and proof, which is more important than my implied right to privacy and freedom from your religion, and therefore you lack a substantive argument for banning abortion. Ergo, you don't get to ban abortion. Believe I'm going to hell all you want, but you don't get to send me to jail.

See, that's freedom. If you lack a provable, good reason you get freedom from, and freedom to.

I would say Tiredofsilly, who prompted my initial reply has a much more limited view of science than I do based on the fact that comparing an unborn child to a wart is a very inaccurate comparison. Skrek, you didn't know the difference between a blastocyst, and embryo and a fetus. Many abortions are performed at a stage where the fetus is quite developed and obviously human. And skrekk, I guess you didn't read the recent stories right here on msnbc a few months ago about the deplorable conditions in more than one LEGAL aborton clinic, where women were dying and becoming permanently infertile because of these conditions.

Evan, the state of abortion clinics have nothing to do with the legality of abortion. That's a smoke screen you're throwing out there. There are all types of clinics that aren't up to code. Second, abortion after the first trimester is illegal except in cases where the mother's life/health is in jeopardy, so if your assertion is true, they do that many at a late date ONLY to save the mother.

First trimester ends at 12 to 14 weeks, depending on which doctor you talk to. Look at photos of unborn babies at that stage and you'll see how human they look. They even have fully formed finger and toes at 8 weeks.

and have no right to take a life.

Of course not, since that would be murder. But then, abortion isn't murder.

although they don't respect other people's right to be born.

Perhaps you can show me where in the law books it says you have that "right to be born?"

you can pray for God to open their eyes.

There's a waste of time, especially since prayer doesn't work.

the vast majority of them have agonized over the decision, most regretting it afterwards.

And some have no problem with it. What's your point?

So many infertile couples want to adopt and there is a shortage of babies available.

Are you kidding? there's no shortage. Or should women be forced to carry a pregnancy just to fill that particular need?

I hardly think prohibiting abortion, which involves the taking of a developing human life compares with Sharia law

The key word here is "developing," which not the same as 'actual.' Besides, I've seen people advocate anti-abortion laws which might be considered on the Sharia scale of restrictiveness.

Many of these couples would pay all the expenses of the pregnant mother.

Oh, so you think pregnant women should be breeding cattle, is that it?

Also, there is such a thing as birth control. People ought to use that if they don't want a baby.

Birth control isn't 100% effective either.

I'd like to add that a blastocyst is an embryo which hasn't even implanted into the uterine wall yet, a stage in which most women don't even know they are pregnant, so an abortion not be taking place at this early stage.

A blastocyst is still a fertilized egg-a "potential" human being by your logic. Are you saying it's not unless it implants? Besides, women don't know when the blastocyst implants either.

Look at a picture at even six weeks gestational age and you will see arms and legs, and at eight weeks, you'll see fully formed fingers and toes.

So?

If there is a risk, then it becomes a medical matter between a woman and her doctor to make a decision about whether her life is in danger.

Abortion is a medical procedure regardless of the reasons behind it or the stage of pregnancy.

That's different than getting an abortion simply because the baby is an inconvenience.

Women have the right to an abortion regardless of their reasons, be it medical necessity or inconvenience.

What about the body of the life growing inside her, who has no say?

That's right. It has no say, nor does it override the rights of the mother.

It is not merely a part of her body, but rather a separate person growing inside of her body.

It's a separate person when it's born. Until then, it is attached to the mother.

Should she have the right to decide the fate of another person.

Yes, because it's her body!

. I don't believe legalized abortion is a good law,

And I disagree.

and I have to speak out against it, whether you or anyone else doesn't like that.

You have that right. Just as I have the right to speak out against you or your views. You just don't have the right to force your views onto others or make them into law.

I should have an equal right to the decision, after all it did take both of us to create the pregnancy.

When you get pregnant, then you'll have a say.

If I want the child, I should be allowed the opportunity to raise it

Sure, if she decides to keep it.

Why is it that she can decide for me?

Because she's the one getting pregnant, not you.

The choice was already made, we should have to live with the consequence.

The mother also has the choice to abort or not. Seems like your potential "consequences" may be significantly lessened if she chooses to abort.

Abuse of laws happen no matter what we do, but I would rather the abuse happen in favor of life, then against it

Laws are different reagrding abortion and child-rearing. You do not seem tio make the differentiation between the two.

I guess you didn't read the recent stories right here on msnbc a few months ago about the deplorable conditions in more than one LEGAL aborton clinic

As opposed to back alley abortions when abortion was illegal. Besides, what does that have to do with abortion itself?

Look at photos of unborn babies at that stage and you'll see how human they look. They even have fully formed finger and toes at 8 weeks.

Again, what's your point? Abortion is legal in the 1st Trimester.

Evanusk: I don't believe legalized abortion is a good law

And, that's ok that you BELIEVE that. It's just another WRONG belief that you have. Much like the cult belief you have -- wrong again! But, it's also your right in this country to have different beliefs, even when they are wrong. It's also your right to be stupid and ignorant, if that's your choice.

and I have to speak out against it,

Speak all you like. Abortion is legal and it will remain legal. No matter how much you babble about it.

whether you or anyone else doesn't like that.

I actually think this is what our country is built upon. People like you, who are incredibly wrong, still have the right to speak out. And, with your arguments as they are, you people tend to lie and misrepresent as you become more and more desperate. You yell things like "baby killer" and "it's a person" and such, and you give away the weakness of your argument by telling lie after lie after lie. People just end up laughing at you.

Frankly, I love our system. It allows people like you to give yourselves more than enough rope to hang yourselves every time.

As I said to skrekk, I have stated my views respectfully without insulting you guys. You have a right to disagree with me, but I also have the right to free speech. You seem to feel that you can't state your view without calling those who don't agree stupid or ignorant as you have called me. I have not insulted you at all. I don't feel the need to retaliate with insults, and I won't, but I'm done. Bye.

As I said to skrekk, I have stated my views respectfully without insulting you guys. You have a right to disagree with me, but I also have the right to free speech. You seem to feel that you can't state your view without calling those who don't agree stupid or ignorant as you have called me.

But isn't that a form of Free Speech, too? Who says YOU have a right to limit MINE? Just because you don't like my style of blunt honesty, doesn't mean YOU can tell me that I cannot speak in the manner that I speak, or that I must abide by some sort of "style" that you find more palpable.

When someone says something stupid, dishonest, or incorrect, I feel compelled to call it out. You think you have some "right" to say I can't? Who TF do you think YOU are? Get over yourself, princess.

Bernwitch

It is not that you are honestly blatant.

You CHARACTERIZE other people and you simply have no knowledge of these people so that you can authoritively do so.

It would be defamation if real world names started getting slung around.

Sorry karen -- but when you lie to me -- or when you lie to others -- nobody is taking your crap and nonsense to heart in either case.

So, take your nonsense walking. Nobody's buying your CRAZY here!

Bernitch, read the code of honor for newsvine. It says above all, respect people. Shows a bit about your character. I know I said I was done, but I can't help but address the issue.

Bernwitch

Apparently I am not the only person.... See 13.34 and I'm sure there are others.

I DO NOT LIE ABOUT ANYTHING. There is no reason for it. The truth is so much more interesting to me.

I have just learned how to use the ignore button.

It's great. I click Ignore this author and that person's posts no longer show up on my screen.

It's nice that you learned how ot use the "Ignore Button" -- my laptop doesn't haev such a button. I actually have to click on a small Ignore Link to actually engage that particular function.

As for lies -- yes, hon, you have been telling lies all through this thread. And you show your cowardice, time and time again, in your unbridled, nasty hatred toward gay people. You're like the dog-crap that shows up on the bottom of people's shoes...

Sorry if you feel that isn't respectful - but it is an honest assessment of someone who is a bigot and who hates an entire population of American Citizens. You are the perfect Republican.

Bernitch, read the code of honor for newsvine. It says above all, respect people

Sorry -- but you and I differ on what RESPECT means. I happen to think it is respectful to be blunt and honest to someone -- especially when they are dishonest. It is very respectful to them, and to anyone reading their screed, to tell them that they are being dishonest and cowardly -- and for the sake of their own self-respect, they should stop doing that.

A pro-abortionist who wants other pro-abortionists to stay out of people's lives? I think you had a little typo there!

It's not pro-abortion, Craig.

It's pro-choice.

No, Stonegarden. It's pro-abortion. A genuine position of pro-choice would want the government not to interfere with any choice, whether it be rape, forcing people into slavery, or mass murder. People who support abortion do not generally go that far.

Have to agree Pvblivs. A woman made the choice to accept the consequences of her pregancy the moment she chose to have sex. She should be held to that choice.

Why is it Pro-abortionists scream they are pro choice but overlook the fact that the woman chose to participate in the act that caused the pregnancy in the first place. And before they scream what about rape. Less than 2 percent of abortions are performed because of rape. And a total of less than 5% of perfomed for reasons other than simply the pregnancy is unwanted.

If people were held accountable for their actions, maybe our country wouldnt be such a mess as it is today!

You're right Pvb. I'm only pro-choice when the government/political party/judge/state, lacks an uber-compelling state reason based in scientific proof as to why to limit a choice.

Psssttt... The Bible doesn't count.

Sarah:

Psst... In case you haven't noticed from my comments, I do not follow the bible. And I am sure that there are people for all of my examples that would state that the government doesn't have an "uber-compelling state interest.: Me, I see it as protecting a person. The abortion lobby tells you that it is just a blob of cells and that you shouldn't look for yourself. I looked for myself. I decided it looked like a person.

Again, it's not a valid interest until you can prove a fetus in the first trimester is a person. Established medical scientists have yet to do that. In fact they've found the opposite.

Pvblivs: Me, I see it as protecting a person. The abortion lobby tells you that it is just a blob of cells and that you shouldn't look for yourself. I looked for myself. I decided it looked like a person.

Then - decide for yourself not to have an abortion. It's nice that you have the freedom to look for yourself and decide for yourself. Now, stop being a goddam coward and allow everyone else that same freedom. Simple as that!

You said it all yourself: Me, I see it as a person. I decided it looked like a person. I looked for myself.

Nobody is required to hold the same perspectives that you have. Stop being a selfish lowlife and a coward, and allow people the same freedoms you already enjoy for yourself. In fact, in this country, YOU HAVE TO! :) So, get used to it.

Bernitch:

Do you decide for yourself and yourself alone not to commit rape? Or do you support the laws against it? Since I have determined that we are talking about a person, I am morally compelled to advocate legal protection for that person. Also it is not sufficient for me to decide for myself not to kill you. I also advocate the laws that protect you from being gunned down by others. The fact is the "don't like abortion, don't have one" line is dishonest in the extreme. We all advocate for laws to enforce what we consider to be morally right. Do not tell me not to do so.

Since I have determined that we are talking about a person,

Oh, how nice for you!

I am morally compelled to advocate legal protection for that person.

knock yourself out, punkin! Tomorrow you could become morally compelled to fight for all the little sperm cells that men waste while masturbating. And the rest of us still WONT CARE!

The fact is the "don't like abortion, don't have one" line is dishonest in the extreme.

No, it really isn't. But, then again, you are still coming from a position of nonsense. Keep fighting Roe v Wade. And I'll keep watching you and laughing at you. Cheers!

Time to sell Texas to Mexico. Eh, actually they can just have it back.

The can have Bush, too!

Wait, let me move outta here before you sell it back. ;)

I say let Perry and Texas seceed... But only if he takes Iowa and Arizona with him.

I generalize, I'm sorry. I'm sure there are some sane people in those states.

Good lifesaver...

No, I actually think Perry is a walking talking member of the lunatic fringe. I don't believe anyone is that good an actor.

Let em go Popp, they only white trash anyway. Always were, still are, likely always will be. Let the Zeta Drug Cartel move in and show em what real men with toy guns are!

let's see -- a month ago you were whining about medical costs with Obama. But, to serve your propaganda, you're all the sudden in favor of expensive, yet unneccessary sonograms of every abortion? You gonna pay for the millions of them every year out of YOUR goddam pocket?

man! you lowlifes just don't know when to stop telling lies, do you!!

what crawled up your irritable self?And who's whining about what a month ago?If I missed your post before it could be I generally skip the folks who call names and swear in lieu of content.

You are pretty smart and fiqured that out all by your lonesome. How many foster children do you have? If you do good for you and it gives you some wait, but when a law forces an 11 year old rape victim to have the child, I draw the line. Like I have said, PRO-LIFE groups are pro-child molester and pro-rapists.

Next will come a law that gives the rapist/molesters parental rights to the child. Also the so called men that impregnate these women have no legal obligation so why should they have the right to force a woman to carry their offspring and then can ditch them any time without ANY recourse.

When the laws are in place for monetary obligation to these childern the so called men who are pro-life will go running and whining about unfair laws, saying it wasn't their fault SHE got pregnant, SHE should have been careful and SHE, always the womens fualt NEVER they guy!!!!

PRO-LIFE is BS

veronafamer: what makes you think you get to decide what consittutional rights women in Texas can have and what rights they cannot have? If you believe a zygote is a baby and abortion is murder, you have a right to that opinion, but not the right to force it on others who think you're an American version of the Taliban. Don't approve of abortion? Don't have one.

veronafoamer, this has nothing to do with "being bothered to look at a sonagram", and you know it. This is all about trying to play on a woman's emotions and trying to sway her to change her mind on an already difficult decision. A woman has a right to choose and not be pressured by right wing lunatics.

Did any of us who were born ask to be? You act like everyone thinks life is this great gift, and maybe it is to some (maybe even to most, but certainly not to all.) The main reason I haven't, and won't, have kids is because I can't think of one single NON-selfish or non-presumptuous reason to have a child. I don't have any "children yet to be born" asking me to birth them . . . so how does one who has no choice in whether to be born make this decision?

Veronafamer: maybe we should all be made to hold little funerals for spilled sperm?

I waste millions of them every night! BA HA HA

Should we have anti cancer treatment freaks? Isn't that killing something?

AP:

And blame a woman every month for unfulfilled destiny of a wasted egg.

Ver,

Wait, you mean abortions aren't enjoyable??? What??? Next you'll tell me smoking's bad for me, or McDonalds makes me fat.

I'm guessing it was your presumptuous assertion based on zero scientific evidence, coupled with your "holier-than-thou" judgment, and your splash of ego that you're "right", that crawled up her behind.

Yes...and those folks that have tried hard to tarnish the state of Texas as you stated have done a bang up job of it. It's beyond trying, they have done it.

California, you are arguing with illiterates. The T-buggers want to dismantle the Constitution, not uphold it. Then they can drive their donkey carts over cobble stone highways again!

Exactly. they think if they call it "states rights" , no one will notice.

Tex, well said! Why would anyone in their right mind want to stop liberal left women from killing their unborn...it is their obligation as far as I am concerned.

CA,

The judge was flat put wrong, because he was inserting the federal government into a state affair. And yes...the states do have the right to tell the federal govern,met to pack sand on anything that is not enumerated in the constitution. I've read said document. Have you?

Tex,

You have it exactly backwards. Us TEA Party folk want to live by the constitution instead of judicial and beauracratic fiat.

Regards,

Mike

It would appear you tea party folks do not understand the Constitution. If you did we wouldn't be having this debate. I suggest you read the article again and see what was struck down and how it relates to the Constitution.

Then I'd suggest you go back and read the Constitution again and maybe get someone to help you comprehend it.

Mike, all these libs know is what they hear from their handlers. The left is desperate now and the name calling and lies about what conservatives are and believe in will only increase as their desperation grows. They are threatened most by those that can do and think for themselves based on the facts.

Mike, Ron, Bob,

1. The supremacy clause. Federal law usurps state law, and when the two conflict federal law premepts state law.

2. The doctrine of stare decisis. A U.S. supreme court ruling, i.e. Roe v. Wade, can only be overturned by the U.S. supreme court. They have express primary authority.

3. I have an implied right to privacy through the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, and 10th amendments. These are laid out in the U.S. consititution, ergo, apply the supremacy clause again.

4. In order to trump that implied right you have to come up with an uber-compelling state interest.

5. For that interest to be the life of the fetus, you need scientific evidence that a 1st trimester fetus is a human. That means peer reviewed articles, and an overwhelming majority of the scientific community that supports the "a fetus is a life" argument.

6. Freedom goes two ways, freedom from and freedom to.

Now, since you three are such consitutional scholars, please, what is your defense to the above listed points.

Very well articulated good point, Sarah!