Posted on 12/08/2023 9:53:43 AM PST by Morgana
You sound like a murderer who has killed and uses it as an excuse to kill again, “What’s one more?” Right? People with murder in their hearts use any excuse to justify doing it again.
a physical or mental handicap, especially one that hinders or prevents a person from performing tasks of daily living, carrying out work or household responsibilities, or engaging in leisure and social activities.As long as the baby is alive, I don't think it's possible to meet the definition of "disabled" at 20 weeks. If it's alive, it's every bit as able-bodied as the next 20-week-old. The distinctions don't become evident until later, maybe even after birth.
This is why they want him gone.
I don’t see anyone saying the parents can’t go to a state allowing abortion at 20 weeks/5 months-to kill the unborn disabled baby-the New Mexico state line is a short drive to the NW, and they will allow a mother to abort for just about any reason at any time in the pregnancy. If they don’t like the law in Texas-even if infertility can result in either case-that is not a life-threatening condition. This is not a village issue-it is one of the same right to life for the unborn as for the already-born-even if that life will be a very short one...
I don’t get why the father of the baby isn’t mentioned-he is involved in this, too. Is he a mute wuss who doesn’t want a say in whether HIS kid gets murdered before birth?
Maybe he did, but this information was redacted to prevent "misinformation".
However to point of my post, he has no legal remedy available to him.
Iceland brags they have an almost 100% abortion rate of Down Syndrome babies.
Precisely. Smells of wanting to overturn Texas’ no abortion law. It would be precedent.
“no legal remedy available to him.”
And that is wrong on so many levels-the father is not carrying and will not give birth-but it is 50% his kid, biologically speaking-he should have a say in whether that kid lives to be born or gets killed by abortion-and he should have a legal remedy to insure that he does have those right-make sure that fathers have both a responsibility and the right to say what happens to their kid...
That is why this needs to be shut down-just make this woman go across the state line to NM to kill her unborn kid-they are even advertising with groups like PP that you can get what amounts to a drive-thru abortion there...
“This is not a village issue-it is one of the same right to life for the unborn as for the already-born-even if that life will be a very short one...”
Then what do you call it when a state attempts to make a decision for the parents and when they lose the initial effort by law they threaten the doctors? If that isn’t a village attempting to take over, then what is it?
wy69
wy69
That is another matter if you are talking about a child already born-I believe the parents are responsible for their kid, and they should decide on care-not anyone else. That said, they still shouldn’t be able to have the kid killed/euthanized-that is still murder, I don’t care what you call it.
She can easily raise money on gofundme. Fly to California.
Nope, sorry. You’re getting off the track of what I said. The child in the womb is the reponsibility of the parents, also, not the law until one is broken. The courts decided it was within the privilege of the parents to determine the outcome of the pregnancy. It is the prosecuters that are threatening the doctors who do the court approved procedure.
So the determination of murder has already been decided by the courts and the AG threatening the doctors with prosecution, persecution is closer, is nothing more than that. They can take anything to court they want. But the only way they are going to stop the decision by the parents is to get a higher court ruling concerning the decision already made to be different. And this one can’t go to the supreme court as the feds are no longer involved.
Plus threatening the doctors with accomplishing the procedure they can, at this point and with the decision by the parents, can get them sued and should. It was taken out of the hands of the legal system and put back into the hands of the people. This act by the AG is an attempt to go back to the law making the decision.
And then where does it stop? Does the government decide who gets treated and how? Does the government decide if a person has the right to live or die due to the inability to accomplish a procedure? Does the government decide what procedures are needed or not without the doctor involved by threatening him/her. This was one of the major flaws in the Affordable Care Act. You want that back? I sure don’t. And giving the right to the government or their representatives to make these decisions is exactly the problem.
wy69
“Why not leave all the killing decisions to the parents? What’s the difference between this kid and one being birthed tomorrow? Or one birthed yesterday? Or one that hasn’t turned 18 yet?”
You are absolutely right except for one really big difference, this child may not make term and won’t live outside the womb. It is the responsibility of the parents to make decisions for the child until they reach 18. But advocating the law should make those decisions should not be in the cards. It is the responsibility of the paents, not the LE. Especially when the health of the mother is involved.
“Actually, that would be more like going after the guy doing the shooting instead of the guy that bought the gun.”
They tried that and the courts told them they can’t. So they are threatening the doctor that does the procedure with prosecution because they can’t do anything else. And that is exactly what a liberal would do. Don’t get what you want, hurt someone else in an effort to get your way like the AG is doing. This is way out of line because the courts have said there is no crime and the AG is trying to strong arm a doctor. This is the type of action you would find in the old Nazi Germany or the acts of hamas in Israel currently.
“Part of the role of the State is to protect its citizens. If random people are trying to kill others, that does fall within the powers delegated to the States.”
There was more than just a decision based upon speculation the the public didn’t hear about. The harm to Ms. Cox’s life, health and fertility are very much also permanent and cannot be undone,” countered Molly Duane, senior counsel for the Center for Reproductive Rights. Duane said Cox’s condition was “rapidly deteriorating every day,” and since the lawsuit was filed on Tuesday, she had already made a trip to the emergency room due to medical complications from her pregnancy. She’s gone to the ER four times in the last month, Duane said.
Like I mentioned, it is not the job of the legal people from the state to counter a court decision with threats and a plan of attack that is a prime use of the Affordable Care Act by taking the possibility of health decision away from the people putting it in the hands of the government.
wy69
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.