Texas bans abortion

[Guilds]

@Janet_Miller

Pro choice individuals often don’t want a full term baby to be one of the choices, and it isn’t just one story.

From the link:

A study published in a major international medical journal found that 64% of American women who had abortions felt pressured by others

Yet, they do not link this study.

Do you have a link to the study they refer to?

[Janet_Miller]

I’m sorry, what?

Baby Safe Haven

[JayJay]

That’s not abandoning.

That was a response to abandonment.

[WuWei]

@JayJay

That’s not abandoning.

Come on man…

[WuWei]

This law is reaping benefits already…

Portland moves to ban Texas travel, trade to protest new abortion law

[Samm]

@FloridaYankee

@Samm

@tnt

@Samm

Perhaps, but that does not answer the question about the amoeba. And unlike a heartbeat, consciousness is very difficult, if not currently impossible, to measure in a developing embryo.

An amoeba is certainly alive. Just like sperm, ova and a zygote.

None of them have consciousness, but all are alive.

Okay … so a developing human with the same basic characteristics as an amoeba is alive too. The sperm and ova are alive, but do not have life. They have no capacity to duplicate themselves like the amoeba does.

Sperm swim, furiously and with intention. I don’t think the definition of life is so cut and dried.

Yes, they “swim” (actually, they just wag their tails and move as a result.) They are living, but they do not have life. They neither grow nor replicate. They are not a species of anything. I don’t know why this comparison keeps coming up. Don’t you believe the science?

[FlameHeart]

Meosis?

[FlameHeart]

I don’t agree with this- I think both parents should try to be in the child’s life and be the best they can be to raise them.

[FlameHeart]

Something to ponder: I have started wondering why a person’s age does not correspond to their birth date + 9 months.

[Ben_Natuf]

fairly certain that lying piece of ■■■■ (ford) is not a great example of anything that actually happened not getting reported

[Ben_Natuf]

i wonder if they’ve heard of the commerce clause and what its actually meant to do?

[Steel-W0LF]

@JayJay

@Steel-W0LF

Honest question:

Should a man be given the right to pay a medical professional the equivalent in fees and absolve himself of all parental responsibilities with no input from the female?

If not why not? Why the different standard?

All parental responsibilities for children already born?

No woman can do this.

No. Prior to birth.

Say the guy doesn’t want the baby but the woman does…. Can the guy go to PP, pay them a fee an absolve himself of child support for the next 18 years without any input from the female?

Because if you reverse the roles, women can.

[WorldWatcher]

@Ben_Natuf

i wonder if they’ve heard of the commerce clause and what its actually meant to do?

Could you expound on what you mean by the commerce clause applying here.

The Commerce clause has to do with Federal regulation of interstate commerce. Nothing, in that clause prevents another state rejecting travel or purchases from another state, unless there is a federal law preventing them from doing so.

At least to my understanding, so what federal law does their action violate?

WW

[Ben_Natuf]

you are 100% completely wrong. the commerce clause gaurentees free trade between the states unless the congress allows otherwise. only the federal government has the power to regulate trade between states, the states have no such power, much less a city

[FlameHeart]

Someone could probably take that and twist it into “well that also means the Texas lawsuit was unconstitutional and had no standing.”

Or something.

[WorldWatcher]

@Ben_Natuf

you are 100% completely wrong. the commerce clause gaurentees free trade between the states unless the congress allows otherwise. only the federal government has the power to regulate trade between states, the states have no such power, much less a city

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;”

So what federal law are they violating?

(And no, the Commerce clause does not compel local government entities - in this case a city - to send their employees on business travel to anywhere or require them to purchase goods and services from another state.)

WW

[Ben_Natuf]

you may want to reread. they have no power to ban anything. do they have to buy anything from them? no, but they can’t ban it either. that power was surrendered to the federal government.

[WuWei]

@Ben_Natuf

you are 100% completely wrong. the commerce clause gaurentees free trade between the states unless the congress allows otherwise. only the federal government has the power to regulate trade between states, the states have no such power, much less a city

I think they are prohibiting expenditure of state funds.

[Ben_Natuf]

they can spend it any way they wish (including buying elsewhere), they have no authority to ban goods from another state. that authority was surrendered to the federal government.

[WorldWatcher]

@WuWei

@Ben_Natuf

you are 100% completely wrong. the commerce clause gaurentees free trade between the states unless the congress allows otherwise. only the federal government has the power to regulate trade between states, the states have no such power, much less a city

I think they are prohibiting expenditure of state funds.

It’s the Portland City Counsel, so it’s tied to local funds.

WW