Cox, 20 weeks pregnant, was denied health care in TX. Is this fair and just or extreme and inhumane?

jack

Openminded said:

Texas law states she cannot receive the health care she needs in that state. She must travel out of state for an abortion.

Hello O:

In Texas, once pregnant, a woman must register her pregnancy with the Womb Squad, an armed division within the police force, for fear that she might want to seek her OWN healthcare, rather than what the state DICTATES. 

Texas is where freedom goes to die.

excon

just_sayin

Openminded said:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/state/2023/12/08/texas-abortion-lawsuit-ken-paxton-files-petition-to-block-kate-cox-abortion-ruling/71854434007/

Kate Cox who resides in Texas,  is a 31 year-old mother of two, 20 weeks pregnant with her third child. The baby has been diagnosed with a rare, chromosomal disorder called Trisomy 18. The chances of the baby´s survival are slim to none. If the baby does survive, it will not survive for more than a few days. The doctorś also claim that if sheś forced to carry the fetus to term and not able to receive the health care she needs, there is a possibility it will jeopardize her ability to carry another baby. 

Texas law states she cannot receive the health care she needs in that state. She must travel out of state for an abortion.

First the child is not an 'it'.  Describing her as such dehumanizes her.  I understand that those who support the killing of the innocent human unborn baby need to dehumanize the child to rationalize killing her in their minds.  Texas law considers the interests of the unborn child at that gestational age.  

According to NPR, the woman left Texas to have an abortion in another state.  See https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/12/11/1218625460/texas-woman-who-sued-state-for-abortion-travels-out-of-state-for-procedure-inste

You may want to update your OP to more accurately represent the situation.

jack

just_sayin said:

First the child is not an 'it'.  Texas law considers the interests of the unborn child at that gestational age. 

You may want to update your OP to more accurately represent the situation

Hello just:

In terms of the law, it's not a child OR an it.  Were it a child, the state would have jurisdiction.  But, it's not, so it doesn't.

You may want to update your response to more accurately represent the law.

From my own perspective, abortion is wrong.  But, forcing a woman to give birth when she doesn't want to is worse.  There are no winners in this debate.

excon

Openminded

Argument Topic: First the child is not an 'it'. Describing her as such dehumanizes her. Texas law considers the interests of the unborn child at that gestational age.

@just_sayin
First the child is not an 'it'.  Describing her as such dehumanizes her.   Texas law considers the interests of the unborn child at that gestational age.  

I preceded ¨it¨ with the word baby. I did not intend to dehumanize the fetus.

I understand that those who support the killing of the innocent human unborn baby need to dehumanize the child to rationalize killing her in their minds.

Nobody supports ¨killing¨ the unborn child. Nobody. And nobody needs to dehumanize the unborn baby to rationalize ¨killing¨. Women who seek health care and abortion rights do not believe they are killing the unborn. Your use of extreme sensationalistic language is just a cover for your need to turn a complex issue into some amorphous problem that women are killing their babies. 

Texas law considers the interests of the unborn child at that gestational age.

Did Texas law consider that the fetus will not survive for longer than a few days?

Does Texas law consider the interests of the living mother, father and family?

  

According to NPR, the woman left Texas to have an abortion in another state.  See https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/12/11/1218625460/texas-woman-who-sued-state-for-abortion-travels-out-of-state-for-procedure-inste

Yes, I knew that she left the state. I posted the site for people to familiarize themselves of the story. You need to answer the debate question. Stay on subject. Revisit the Code of Ethics.

just_sayin

jack said:

just_sayin said:

First the child is not an 'it'.  Texas law considers the interests of the unborn child at that gestational age. 

You may want to update your OP to more accurately represent the situation

Hello just:

In terms of the law, it's not a child OR an it.  Were it a child, the state would have jurisdiction.  But, it's not, so it doesn't.

You may want to update your response to more accurately represent the law.

From my own perspective, abortion is wrong.  But, forcing a woman to give birth when she doesn't want to is worse.  There are no winners in this debate.

excon

SMH.  First, child is a generic term that applies to the unborn.  Hence a pregnant woman can say she is 'with child' and people understand what she means.  Secondly, Texas law recognizes the unborn child and denies abortion at 20 weeks on that basis.  You might want to update YOUR response.

i would argue that the child's penalty of death is more severe than the woman carrying a child to term.  

jack

just_sayin said:

i would argue that the child's penalty of death is more severe than the woman carrying a child to term.  

Hello again, j:

You wonder what's more severe, but your interests wain after the baby is born.. I would argue that starting your life NOT being wanted, could certainly portend a life of misery.. 

excon

Openminded

Argument Topic: i would argue that the child's penalty of death is more severe than the woman carrying a child to term.

@just_sayin
Really? Have you every carried a child? How would you know? We´re talking about a child, that if carried to full term and given birth, will have the most severe disabilities and will likely not survive beyond a few days. This is a cruel thing to do to a newborn baby knowing there is no chance for survival. Have you read about Trisomy 18? Or are you just shooting from the hip?

John_C_87

Sec. 1. FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self‑government, unimpaired to all the States. (Feb. 15, 1876

Sec. 3a. EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed, or national origin. This amendment is self‑operative. (Added Nov. 7, 1972

Texas Constitution

Sec.1 The United States Constitution describes the pregnant women a ambassador of the posterity assigned by law of nature.
Sec 3a. The United States Constitution derives its powers from Declaration of Independence from English criminal law. Within that Declaration it States all men are created equal by their creator and to prevent women from such equality goes against the Texas Constitution. "All women are created equal by their creator." Presadera can be such creator of United state of right between all women and American United States Constitution.

just_sayin

Openminded said:

@just_sayin
Really? Have you every carried a child? How would you know? We´re talking about a child, that if carried to full term and given birth, will have the most severe disabilities and will likely not survive beyond a few days. This is a cruel thing to do to a newborn baby knowing there is no chance for survival. Have you read about Trisomy 18? Or are you just shooting from the hip?

One's genitals is not where one thinks.  Truth is not dependent on gender.  That accusation is a bigoted one.  Further, since we do not know the future, it seems immoral to judge the value of a life.  Tell me, would you kill a 1 year old with Trisomy 18 so her life wouldn't be so cruel?  Most would not be that evil and would allow her to live. Would you kill someone who had downs syndrome?  You could make the same exact argument you just made - that it is cruel to let them live that way.  In fact some immoral people have made that very argument. 

Those who seek to kill her have deemed her less human than a 1 year old with severe disabilities, or someone with downs syndrome.  A consistent theme in the argumentation for killing her, is to dehumanizer and treat her in a way that one would not treat other human beings. That seems incredibly immoral.

 

Openminded

Argument Topic: Those who seek to kill her have deemed her less human than a 1 year old with severe disabilities, or someone with downs syndrome. A consistent theme in the argumentation for killing her, is to dehumanizer and treat her in a way that one would not treat other human beings. That seems incredibly immoral.

@just_sayin

You think your cruelty and uninformed, inexperienced opinion - seemingly thinking God will intervene - and puff magically the child will be a healthy, viable baby should be law? Who are you to judge someone immoral for listening to her doctors and understanding that this child, if allowed birth, will suffer the most heinous few days and cause severe suffering for both the baby and the family?

Sounds like someone has a God complex.