Texas woman with ectopic pregnancy denied abortion

[Nithavela]

and let's be real, it was never about "my body my choice" it is, and always has been, a desire to sin without "consequence", even if it kills other people.
but what they really do, is store up more wrath for God to take out on them, unless they seek His grace through Jesus Christ.

It is truly selfless of you to protect people who dont believe in your diety from storing up more wrath from said diety.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The issue is the current Texas abortion law that allows for anybody unconnected to the case to sue, without having to pay the defendants costs if they lose.

Wait... Who does pay the defendant's cost if they lose?

 

[Goonie]

Wait... Who does pay the defendant's cost if they lose?

I might have got that the wrong way round

 

[Servus]

Wait... Who does pay the defendant's cost if they lose?

Sometimes the plaintiff has to pay the defendant's legal fees, if the plaintiff fails to prove their case.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Sometimes the plaintiff has to pay the defendant's legal fees, if the plaintiff fails to prove their case.

Ah. I think it was the plaintiff who pays nothing if they lose... So who does pay?

 

[Servus]

Ah. I think it was the plaintiff who pays nothing if they lose... So who does pay?

If you sue someone for 10k, you're the plaintiff and the person you're suing is the defendant. If you lose, you might have to pay their legal fees. If that hasn't been established, then they pay their own legal fees.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

A child that is the consequences of your own poor decision making is not an intruder.
the person going into your home is a stranger, you do not know their motivations or if they are a threat to you or your family, so you're acting in self defense.

So.. this is my stance on the whole issue
First off, the woman should be aware that if she has sex, a pregnancy is a possible consequence, so, she should make decisions wisely with that in mind. Contraceptives may lower the chance, but not eliminate it completely. So if a woman is going to have sex, she has to be willing to accept that this may make her a mother.
For an actual married family, okay, prepare to expand your family then, it happens. It happened to my sister, her IUD failed, but you know what? She and her husband sat down, and decided to expand their family, even though they were worried about finances. Know what happened? God blessed them, she had twins, a boy and a girl, and they're absolutely priceless, her husband actually quit his day job to be a stay at home dad to cut down on childcare costs, but.. his small business that he runs from his home took off, so they're actually doing better than they had been before.
For unwed? You know, maybe consider not fornicating or committing adultery?
I see no reason for abortions to be legal on the premise of enabling fornication/adultery, "hookup culture" if you will. If driving abortions out of easy accessibility reduces hook up culture? God be praised.

Now mind you, I'm okay with contraceptives, even morning after pills, anything that works prior to implantation which is when I believe is actual biblical conception (as conception takes place in the womb, but fertilization takes place in the fallopian tubes, even with a fertilized egg a woman is not considered pregnant until implantation)
So those can be used for family planning and for dealing with rape and incest.

But after implantation? Should only be permitted for medical needs, that is threat to the life of the mother (self defense) or fatal anomaly of the fetus (compassion, if they have no chance of surviving outside the womb once born)

as far as "my body my choice"? Well, I used to drink that kool aid, until they started pushing for vaccine mandates. Suddenly it's not my body my choice anymore is it?
Not to mention, in a pregnancy, there are 2 bodies involved.
and one of them is not the woman's.

Hmm. Your screed seems awfully female focused. What about the men involved? Where is your derision for them?

 

[Jamdoc]

It is truly selfless of you to protect people who dont believe in your diety from storing up more wrath from said diety.

Your lack of belief doesn't mean you won't fall on your face before Him one day.
The truth is not dependent on your believing it or not.

 

[Jamdoc]

Hmm. Your screed seems awfully female focused. What about the men involved? Where is your derision for them?

The men aren't the ones aborting, it's not their body, so not their choice, remember? A father actually has no decision making power legally in the case of abortion. If a man gets a woman pregnant, and she wants to abort? She can currently murder the child no matter what the man says even if he wants to keep the baby.
The only impact he can have after the pregnancy starts is trying to influence her decision, and to that effect there are many irresponsible men who urge a girlfriend get an abortion even if she would like to have the baby, but he pressures her. So just think, if abortion's not allowed electively anymore, those evil men won't be pressuring their girlfriends into getting abortions against their will now will they?
though, obviously men shouldn't be fornicating and committing adultery in the first place.

Hook up culture needs to go entirely.
I've heard plenty of complaints about how society has a double standard on sexual purity where women are expected to be pure while men are encouraged to go and "sow their wild oats".
Well, that needs to go.
Women shouldn't be fornicating, and neither should men.

It's sin and we need to stop glorifying it.

 

[Nithavela]

Your lack of belief doesn't mean you won't fall on your face before Him one day.
The truth is not dependent on your believing it or not.

Thanks, mate, but Ill eat hot dogs with Discordia instead.

 

[Goonie]

If you sue someone for 10k, you're the plaintiff and the person you're suing is the defendant. If you lose, you might have to pay their legal fees. If that hasn't been established, then they pay their own legal fees.

Not in Texas, under the abortion law, plaintiff is not liable for the defendants legal costs if they(the plaintiff) loses.

 

[Yttrium]

I'm sure that's the case where the doctors are concerned. But the situation is also being exploited by those who want wholesale abortions to proceed unimpeded.

Sure. That doesn't mean the law shouldn't be adjusted to prevent this kind of situation in the future. If the law isn't fixed, it continues to provide those people more fuel.

 

[ottawak]

If you sue someone for 10k, you're the plaintiff and the person you're suing is the defendant. If you lose, you might have to pay their legal fees. If that hasn't been established, then they pay their own legal fees.

If the plaintiff loses the state pays his legal fees. If the plaintiff wins the defendant pays them.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Hmm. Your screed seems awfully female focused. What about the men involved? Where is your derision for them?

Now why would there be any derision for them? "Boys will be boys," doncha know...

 

[TLK Valentine]

If the plaintiff loses the state pays his legal fees. If the plaintiff wins the defendant pays them.

Well, that's going to encourage a lot of frivolous lawsuits... but they'll be against suspected abortionists, so it's all good, I suppose...

 

[KCfromNC]

A child that is the consequences of your own poor decision making is not an intruder.

That's certainly an opinion. And, I'll note, one which doesn't do much to diminish the idea that anti-abortion legislation is designed to punish women who have consensual sex.

 

[Mayzoo]

Seems the agenda is to take an exceptional case and present it as the rule for why wholesale abortions should be legal.

The agenda is to show this is happening on occasion. When I stated about a week ago this could happen, I am almost certain I was told on this forum this would NEVER happen and for me to imply it could EVER happen was outright fear-mongering.

Since you were obviously unclear what the agenda was, maybe you should ask rather than assume. Live and learn I hope.

 

[Jamdoc]

That's certainly an opinion. And, I'll note, one which doesn't do much to diminish the idea that anti-abortion legislation is designed to punish women who have consensual sex.

We're talking about life and death here, so yeah, it shouldn't just be brushed aside for convenience because of consent to sin.

 

[KCfromNC]

We're talking about life and death here, so yeah, it shouldn't just be brushed aside for convenience because of consent to sin.

Yes, clearly the Texas anti-abortion law is threatening the lives of women as outlined in the OP.

And again with the "consent to sin" stuff, it just adds more fuel to the idea that anti-abortion policy is really about punishing women for choosing to have sex.

 

[Mayzoo]

For the Texas abortion law:

The defendant always pays their own legal costs regardless of who wins. If the defendant wins, they pay their own fees; if they lose they pay both fees.

The defendant is also not immune to numerous repeat lawsuits even if they win. They can be sued over and over and over again, even if they win the initial lawsuit. A vendetta can bankrupt a doctor easily as you run down the list of everyone you know, or you can sway your way through social media, to sue a doctor.