Texas Repubs pass abortion bill

[Alt+F4]

Perhaps more bizarrely, can you be denied an abortion whilst awaiting your own execution?

Will I be charged with another murder if I have an abortion during my execution?

 

[Alt+F4]

I value the life of the unborn baby higher than I do the right of the mother to not have a baby.

Then don't get pregnant and you won't have to worry about it.

Oh wait....

 

[Lowpro]

But the state does have a right to intervene at some point. The Justices in Roe set that point after 12 weeks. This was, of course, later modified to be after viability. In other words, the state has a legitimate interest in protecting both mother and fetus from conception, but the interest in protecting the fetus becomes greater after viability.

The state has a legitimate duty to promote the health and welfare of the mother and child, yes. However their 9th Amendment protection does not allow for intervention until 28 weeks; this has since been modified as viability has been researched though viability is relative. Time of development honestly is not a strong standard of viability since internal factors influence that. Viability declines with younger pregnancies, with teratogenesis, and health of the mother. Therefore, the state can only intervene at viability. That intervention SHOULD NOT include banning a legitimate procedure such as abortion at ANY stage even though it is in their interest to do so. Intervention doesn't necessitate legislating the procedure, the intervention can include funding or withholding funding for example. But not this horsecrap that they're pushing.

It doesn't really matter what semantics we use to describe the right under question. Effectively, women have a right to abort up until viability. Whether that right stems from privacy in medical decisions or from some other fundamental liberty is secondary in this discussion.

Actually the issue of semantics here is that the "right" to abortion is not an event that can be codified; abortion is NOT a procedure it's a biological event. That is NOT a semantic issue. The interest a State has is in the procedure of abortion given by physicians but a woman can have an abortion at any stage. They often don't have one in the late stage because that's actually difficult, dangerous and most all doctors will NOT perform one because of the first two parts; State laws shouldn't even be drafted in this. This is a matter of ACTUAL health, not health as dictated by the states. So they need to piss off. The interjection of viability as a matter of state interest is reasonable in regards to preserving the well being of the unborn child but it should NOT allow for the states to dictate the availability of the procedure. If the states were to actually take their 9th amendment duty seriously then they should be involved in providing infrastructure and services in lieu of abortion such as effective adoption infrastructure or home childcare infrastructure. All bans on abortion are ignoring their actual duty in favor of again, tickling their moral scrotum.

Sure, up until viability, then the state has a strong interest in protecting the life of the fetus.

A strong interest is one thing. Eliminating abortion procedures (and by a TERRIBLE system of time rather than individual development and circumstance) effectively reduces the capacity for healthcare providers to promote both health and well being for mother AND child.

That is a matter of opinion. If you opine that women should have a right to terminate whenever they want, then your opinion would clash with the decision reached in Roe, most State laws and the opinions of most people in America.

I opine that the state laws consider any of this as a "right" as dictated by law at all. It's RIDICULOUS. A woman can terminate whenever she wants as a biological FACT not as dictated by law. Again if I were as misguided as you I'd just outlaw cancer.

You are describing social problems which definitely need to be solved.
Abortion is a very different issue from organ donation and smoking.
I don't think the Texas law will change access to abortions one iota. There is no undue burden to abortion. There are no more roadblocks now than there were then.

Do you know what that Texas law did? Here, I know what I'm going to do. I'm going to give you cancer. A really bad kind. You won't know you have it until a few weeks, the most critical weeks for survival. And you know what I'm then going to do? I'm going to make sure each clinic within 30 miles has to make sure they obey some of the most ridiculous and disproportionate regulations. Your clinic will need to meet emergency ambulance infrastructure regulations. It will need to have an attending physician with privileges of one of those hospitals within 30 miles, oh and by the way most all those hospitals will NOT allow for most of these physicians; cancer goes against their morals. They won't allow for treatment of cancer, because you used to smoke and you're responsible!

Now I don't know how you interpret this but this was just a bunch of weaseling and perversion of MY field of public health in order to promote a sadistic ideology.

Abortion and organ donations are different but from a legal standpoint the argument for special case for abortion versus a state interest in organ donation is actually a valid comparison as well as mandatory smoking cessation. Mandatory organ donation is actually of the state interest for the same reason you're saying abortion is. If you can find ANY argument against mandatory organ donation I bet you dollars to donuts it's because the state has no right to intervene on an individuals' capacity to dictate their biology. Even though mandatory organ donation would save money and improve healthcare. Mandatory organ donation is actually a VERY interesting topic if you want to get into that debate and it mirrors the abortion debate so closely yet people have such different opinions that it demonstrates abortion opponents as nothing but hypocritical ideologues.

 

[xjx388]

The former trumps the latter.

Why does the woman have a right to decide she doesn't want to be a parent but the man doesn't? Or conversely, why does the woman get to decide she doesn't want to be a parent but the man does? Simply because it's her body?

I've heard the argument in other places that if the man didn't want to be a father, he shouldn't have had sex. Why wouldn't that argument hold true with women?

And if that's insufficient, women are just SOL? And you say that with the full knowledge that you will never, ever have to worry about being affected one bit should Planned Parenthood be unable to pay for the care of all the women that need it?

Are you saying that the government should pay for abortions? I don't think you will find many who agree with you. Abortions should be available, but not paid for by the government.

The same Republican representative that sponsored this bill also wanted to take away CHIP coverage from pregnant women, because the fetuses those women were carrying didn't count for coverage because "they weren't born yet".

So I hope you'll forgive me for being less than convinced that women's health is still safe in Texas.

That was pretty idiotic. She couldn't see the contradiction. I support CHIP coverage for needy pregnant women under the theory that we are actually covering and protecting the unborn child. That is one issue where I differ from Republicans in Texas.

How is "things are bad now" in any way, shape, or form a mitigating factor in for making them even worse?

This bill doesn't make things any worse than they are now. Rural Texas residents will still have to drive to a major city to get an abortion. That's the way it's always been. The only way to solve that is to increase funding for abortions to unprecedented levels and that isn't going to happen. Besides, it makes no economic sense to put an abortion clinic in a rural city.

So you plan to vote against candidates running for the Texas legislature which oppose this, yes?

That will be a factor in my voting decisions, yes.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Simply because it's her body?

There is an amazing amount of law based on the quaint notion that we get to decide what we want to do with our own bodies. Are you unaware of this concept?

 

[Alt+F4]

There is an amazing amount of law based on the quaint notion that we get to decide what we want to do with our own bodies. Are you unaware of this concept?

Thank you. The difference between men and women. He makes a bad choice and can just go bye-bye (see ya bitch). She makes a bad choice and has to make very difficult physical, emotional and financial choices.

 

[xjx388]

The state has a legitimate duty to promote the health and welfare of the mother and child, yes. However their 9th Amendment protection does not allow for intervention until 28 weeks; this has since been modified as viability has been researched though viability is relative. Time of development honestly is not a strong standard of viability since internal factors influence that. Viability declines with younger pregnancies, with teratogenesis, and health of the mother.

I think SCOTUS is not likely to strike down the Texas law because it is within the window of a definition of viability. We'll see.

Actually the issue of semantics here is that the "right" to abortion is not an event that can be codified; abortion is NOT a procedure it's a biological event.

That is a strange way of looking at it. It is an induced biological event. A miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion; that might be a biological event. But an induced abortion is a conscious decision to end the life of the fetus. At some point, your right to make that decision becomes inferior to the protection of the fetus.

That is NOT a semantic issue. The interest a State has is in the procedure of abortion given by physicians but a woman can have an abortion at any stage. They often don't have one in the late stage because that's actually difficult, dangerous and most all doctors will NOT perform one because of the first two parts; State laws shouldn't even be drafted in this. This is a matter of ACTUAL health, not health as dictated by the states. So they need to piss off.

I can terminate my child's life at any stage of the game. This fact does not make such termination acceptable. I don't think the state will "piss off" if I terminate my 4 year old.

The interjection of viability as a matter of state interest is reasonable in regards to preserving the well being of the unborn child but it should NOT allow for the states to dictate the availability of the procedure.

How can the State protect the unborn child then?

If the states were to actually take their 9th amendment duty seriously then they should be involved in providing infrastructure and services in lieu of abortion such as effective adoption infrastructure or home childcare infrastructure. All bans on abortion are ignoring their actual duty in favor of again, tickling their moral scrotum.

Adoption infrastructure exists. Childcare exists. No one has banned abortion, only restricted it in the interest of the child.

A strong interest is one thing. Eliminating abortion procedures (and by a TERRIBLE system of time rather than individual development and circumstance) effectively reduces the capacity for healthcare providers to promote both health and well being for mother AND child.

How is providing an abortion (especially in the later stages of pregnancy) promoting the health and wellbeing of the child?

I opine that the state laws consider any of this as a "right" as dictated by law at all. It's RIDICULOUS. A woman can terminate whenever she wants as a biological FACT not as dictated by law. Again if I were as misguided as you I'd just outlaw cancer.

I can terminate my 4 year old whenever I want as a biological FACT. Should this not be prevented by law?

Do you know what that Texas law did? Here, I know what I'm going to do. I'm going to give you cancer. A really bad kind. You won't know you have it until a few weeks, the most critical weeks for survival. And you know what I'm then going to do? I'm going to make sure each clinic within 30 miles has to make sure they obey some of the most ridiculous and disproportionate regulations. Your clinic will need to meet emergency ambulance infrastructure regulations. It will need to have an attending physician with privileges of one of those hospitals within 30 miles, oh and by the way most all those hospitals will NOT allow for most of these physicians; cancer goes against their morals. They won't allow for treatment of cancer, because you used to smoke and you're responsible!

Now I don't know how you interpret this but this was just a bunch of weaseling and perversion of MY field of public health in order to promote a sadistic ideology.

If I live in rural Texas, chances are I will have to travel quite a distance to get my cancer treated. That's just reality. There can't be hospital every 30 miles.

 

[Dessi]

Why does the woman have a right to decide she doesn't want to be a parent but the man doesn't? Or conversely, why does the woman get to decide she doesn't want to be a parent but the man does? Simply because it's her body?

Yes. A woman's blood and organs belong to her, no person on the planet has a right to them without her approval. There's no precedent allowing a husband to volunteer use of his wife's blood and organs to anyone against his wife's wishes.

 

[xjx388]

There is an amazing amount of law based on the quaint notion that we get to decide what we want to do with our own bodies. Are you unaware of this concept?

I am quite aware of it. But there are equal amounts of law based on the notion that we cannot do whatever we want to with our bodies and certainly not with the bodies of third parties.

I can't sell my kidney. I can't snort coke. I can't kill other people. I can't make other people donate organs to save my life. I can't force a woman to carry my baby.

I don't see this as any different. A man should be able to decide whether or not he wants to be a parent. In the present scheme of things, a woman makes that decision not just for herself, but for the man as well. Her decision what to do with her body affects the man directly -which makes it more than just a decision that only affects her. Add to that the unborn child and it makes it that much less about her.

 

[A'isha]

Why does the woman have a right to decide she doesn't want to be a parent but the man doesn't? Or conversely, why does the woman get to decide she doesn't want to be a parent but the man does? Simply because it's her body?

What do you mean "simply because it's her body"? If you want a child, all you have to do is get a woman pregnant and simply walk away with literally zero effect on your body, then merely wait for nine months. And you don't even have to be there during that time - you can do what you like, go where you like, eat and drink what you like. You, in short, don't have to do a single goddamned thing during that entire pregnancy period. Meanwhile, the woman you made pregnant has to put up with all of this **** (to say nothing of the financial and mental health isues involved) dealing with something that could very well kill her.

So yeah, she kind of gets more of a say than you do.

I've heard the argument in other places that if the man didn't want to be a father, he shouldn't have had sex. Why wouldn't that argument hold true with women?

Maybe you should try asking at those other places? No one, as far as I can tell, is making that argument here.

Are you saying that the government should pay for abortions? I don't think you will find many who agree with you. Abortions should be available, but not paid for by the government.

I'm saying that the government should pay for healthcare, including abortions.

This bill doesn't make things any worse than they are now. Rural Texas residents will still have to drive to a major city to get an abortion. That's the way it's always been.

Except now they will have fewer cities to drive to, and will have to deal with more crowded clinics when they do get there. Which is, despite your odd assertion, worse than it is now.

The only way to solve that is to increase funding for abortions to unprecedented levels and that isn't going to happen. Besides, it makes no economic sense to put an abortion clinic in a rural city.

Why? It will serve a regional area, so that people closer to that clinic than they are to one in a large city won't have to travel as far. And there will be more of them, so that the chances of there being a clinic closer than a large city is vastly increased. Not to mention the bill's malicious redesignation of nonsurgical abortions to be the same as surgical abortions, so that RU486 is only available in person at one of those few large-city clinics.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I am quite aware of it. But there are equal amounts of law based on the notion that we cannot do whatever we want to with our bodies and certainly not with the bodies of third parties.

I can't sell my kidney. I can't snort coke. I can't kill other people. I can't make other people donate organs to save my life. I can't force a woman to carry my baby.

I don't see this as any different. A man should be able to decide whether or not he wants to be a parent. In the present scheme of things, a woman makes that decision not just for herself, but for the man as well. Her decision what to do with her body affects the man directly -which makes it more than just a decision that only affects her. Add to that the unborn child and it makes it that much less about her.

So kids don't deserve parental support? Why shouldn't a man be able to walk away from his kids at any time?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...Abortion is a symptom of a failed reproductive education program for states. You don't cure it by restricting abortion because it will further racial and socioeconomic disparities. If you want to prevent abortion then you should be providing more interventions towards contraceptive use and childcare assistance, something this bill was not intended to actually do. It's a spiteful bill written by a bunch of ideological pricks with little concern for these public health issues and would rather jerk off to their ignorant moral attitudes.

I'm afraid I can't provide a cite, or even more than a passing recollection of what I read (in "The New Yorker") but I'll give it my best.

There is a current elected official (pretty sure serving in the House) who, speaking to the writer/reporter, said (closely paraphrased), "I'm a congressman, and also a doctor. Personally, I have never performed and never will perform an abortion. But I recognize the problem. And I believe strongly that the single most surefire way to deal with the issue is by providing contraception.

"I have talked to so many fellow Republicans and said the same thing: 'If you really want to reduce abortions, this is the way to go. You reduce abortions, dramatically, by reducing pregnancies.' But it's a non-starter. They won't even entertain the idea."

 

[Alt+F4]

A man should be able to decide whether or not he wants to be a parent.

He can refuse to be a parent. However he can't, legally, decide to not to pay for the welfare of his child.

 

[Lowpro]

I think SCOTUS is not likely to strike down the Texas law because it is within the window of a definition of viability. We'll see.

20 weeks as a determination of viability, while honestly stupid, fits the pragmatism for most states and healthcare providers. I think SCOTUS would absolutely strike down the clinic regulations as they violate the state's duty to provide access to healthcare. The states are violating their duty in this Texas bill.

That is a strange way of looking at it. It is an induced biological event. A miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion; that might be a biological event. But an induced abortion is a conscious decision to end the life of the fetus. At some point, your right to make that decision becomes inferior to the protection of the fetus.

And AGAIN your trying to shove in it as a "right", but that's NONSENSE! States don't have to provide for abortion by their legal capacity but that doesn't mean they have a duty to invent a legal capacity to REMOVE that either, even for protection of the fetus. If the states actually used the measure of viability what they'd do is actually take the fetus considered viable as their own ward. The mother can have it removed and the state can then provide for all medical care to bring the child to term with whatever technology available. THAT is what defines the State's intervention capacity. Do you see them doing that? Do you see them OFFERING that? Nope, and it's because this "viability" argument is a bs argument; it's an artifact of the research that politicians use in a sadistic fashion to promote their anti-choice agenda. It's a smokescreen.

I can terminate my child's life at any stage of the game. This fact does not make such termination acceptable. I don't think the state will "piss off" if I terminate my 4 year old.

You misunderstand the dynamic severely. That child, when born is afforded the rights as delegated by the state and their sovereignty. Even if you're a parent your legal capacity is nothing more than a proxy of the state. Killing your born child, who is completely independent of your biology and poses no health risk to you (assuming that you killing them isn't in self defense...). Unborn fetus is a COMPLETELY different legal and biological dynamic. Conflating this again is beneath you.

How can the State protect the unborn child then?

By using ACTUAL intervention measures. If they want to promote the health of a "viable" fetus they can go out and buy a surrogate uterus (either technological or transplant). I have no idea if this is even feasible but THAT is how a state can protect the unborn child. Otherwise prohibiting abortion violates their duty.

Adoption infrastructure exists. Childcare exists. No one has banned abortion, only restricted it in the interest of the child.

Those infrastructures do exist and yet for some reason the focus is still on mitigating the capacity for healthcare professionals and mothers to make health decisions. How do you not see the disconnect here? The restriction in the interest of the child is bullpies because if that were true they would actually use interventions, not restrictions.

How is providing an abortion (especially in the later stages of pregnancy) promoting the health and wellbeing of the child?

Ten dollars and a bag of donuts says you have no idea why later stage abortions are performed. Later stage abortions almost always are performed because the child's viability not only to survive birth but to survive in the uterus is dangerous to allow for further development. This doesn't happen often but it does put the mother and child at risk. Most all abortions are performed early. Later discretionary abortions are performed to reduce further risks to both mother and child. You cannot presuppose viability across the board. Even children who are born may be non viable.

I can terminate my 4 year old whenever I want as a biological FACT. Should this not be prevented by law?

is your child biologically dependent on you? Does it put you at risk? Are there other intervention measures that produce better outcomes? If no, kill your kid. I'll advocate for you.

If I live in rural Texas, chances are I will have to travel quite a distance to get my cancer treated. That's just reality. There can't be hospital every 30 miles.

That isn't even an argument against me, you realize that right? Just because my individual reality makes treatment hard doesn't mean that states get to force legal restrictions for it. That's absolutely a violation of their duty. You know what they SHOULD do? Build more hospitals...

 

[Elizabeth I]

There's no requirement to spend tax money on abortions. If Texans want abortions to be available, then they will make donations to PP and other agencies to keep them afloat. And for poor women, Medicaid continues to provide comprehensive benefits including family planning, pap smears, etc.

No tax money was spent on abortion provision in Texas. Planned Parenthood in Texas explicitly chose that path in order to continue receiving government support.

The gutting of Planned Parenthood funding in Texas is most definitely a part of the Tea Party agenda to punish women for their sexuality.

And perhaps you are unaware of the fact that Texas' idiot-in-chief Rick Perry has refused any increase to Medicaid funding in Texas.

Sure I do. I was a teen dad. My girlfriend (now wife) had to choose between having a kid and taking a full-ride to Texas A&M. She chose the kid.

I feel for women in those situations and I think we need to find a way to make life better for them. But not at the expense of a viable baby.

Gee, you "feel for" them. That's generous. Would you like to share with us your ethnicity, your education level, and your income? I ask because I have a strong suspicion that you are living a pretty easy life and have no idea what the women you "feel for" have to deal with.

In this context, you sound very much like those who argue that people who are poor and uneducated somehow deserve it. You know, that lazy, grasping 48%.

[And, by the way, why weren't you and your girlfriend - now your wife - using contraception, Mr. Responsibility?]

How is it untrue?

There will be no more roadblocks than currently exist. I spoke earlier about rural areas already having a lack of abortion clinics. People already have to drive to larger cities to get them. No greater burden there.

Women will still have access to abortions, just only until 20 weeks. That isn't an undue burden.

So what is the greater burden?

There's a big difference between sixty miles and two hundred miles. Are you aware of the fact that every clinic west of IH-35 will have to close under these rules? Look at a map of Texas.

Why does the woman have a right to decide she doesn't want to be a parent but the man doesn't? Or conversely, why does the woman get to decide she doesn't want to be a parent but the man does? Simply because it's her body?

Yes, "simply because it's her body." What ivory tower do you live in? Because the woman has to deal with all the physical risks of pregnancy and delivery, and, if the man chooses to walk away, all the financial and social burdens of raising a child alone.

I've heard the argument in other places that if the man didn't want to be a father, he shouldn't have had sex. Why wouldn't that argument hold true with women?

Gosh, maybe you haven't noticed, but women often have much less choice in the question of whether or not to have sex than men do. And I'm not talking just about rape. I'm also talking about cultural and social practices and pressures that dictate that women yield to men in the arena of who initiates sex and who gets to say yes or no, even in the context of marriage. Those pressures often also discourage the practice of contraception.

There, now you can say that this is a "cultural and societal" issue - a completely different subject - that shouldn't affect the availability of abortion. That's dishonest argumentation, but it doesn't seem to stop you.

I can't sell my kidney. I can't snort coke.

Certainly you can. You just can't get caught. The coke traffic between Mexico and the United States gives the lie to that assertion.

I don't see this as any different. A man should be able to decide whether or not he wants to be a parent.

Only in so far as he can find a woman willing to carry a baby for him.

 

[xjx388]

So kids don't deserve parental support? Why shouldn't a man be able to walk away from his kids at any time?

I think it should be more of an opt-in strategy. A man has to opt-in to accepting parental rights and responsibilities. This would apply to babies conceived out of wedlock. In a marriage, the man opts-in by default. And once one opts-in they can never opt-out.

(As an aside, this is a problem I forsee in gay marriages. If two women are married and one conceives through IVF, does the other one have parental rights automatically. If they later divorce, can the non biological parent give up the rights and responsibilities? But that's something for another topic.)

I can't reconcile the thinking that says a woman can opt-out of parental responsibilities by opting for an abortion; but, the man is automatically opted-in if the woman decides to keep the baby. There's something fundamentally wrong with that. Why do women get a special right that men do not have?

If your answer is because their biology gives them that right, I would say that the woman would not have the decision to make at all if there were no man; the male biology is equally necessary for conception. We allow men to be sperm donors and sign away any parental rights and responsibilities so what's the difference here?

When a fertile man and woman engage in consensual sex, there is an underlying acceptance that the union, however fleeting and regardless of either's intentions, could result in a baby. They should both have equal ability to opt-in to the parental rights and responsibilities of that baby.

 

[xjx388]

He can refuse to be a parent. However he can't, legally, decide to not to pay for the welfare of his child.

See my above post as it addresses the same issue.

 

[A'isha]

I can't reconcile the thinking that says a woman can opt-out of parental responsibilities by opting for an abortion; but, the man is automatically opted-in if the woman decides to keep the baby. There's something fundamentally wrong with that. Why do women get a special right that men do not have?

Because women have a special burden that men do not have.

If your answer is because their biology gives them that right, I would say that the woman would not have the decision to make at all if there were no man; the male biology is equally necessary for conception.

Perhaps. But the male biology is totally unnecessary for what comes after conception.

 

[Lowpro]

I think it should be more of an opt-in strategy. A man has to opt-in to accepting parental rights and responsibilities. This would apply to babies conceived out of wedlock. In a marriage, the man opts-in by default. And once one opts-in they can never opt-out.

(As an aside, this is a problem I forsee in gay marriages. If two women are married and one conceives through IVF, does the other one have parental rights automatically. If they later divorce, can the non biological parent give up the rights and responsibilities? But that's something for another topic.)

I can't reconcile the thinking that says a woman can opt-out of parental responsibilities by opting for an abortion; but, the man is automatically opted-in if the woman decides to keep the baby. There's something fundamentally wrong with that. Why do women get a special right that men do not have?

If your answer is because their biology gives them that right, I would say that the woman would not have the decision to make at all if there were no man; the male biology is equally necessary for conception. We allow men to be sperm donors and sign away any parental rights and responsibilities so what's the difference here?

When a fertile man and woman engage in consensual sex, there is an underlying acceptance that the union, however fleeting and regardless of either's intentions, could result in a baby. They should both have equal ability to opt-in to the parental rights and responsibilities of that baby.

There's a lot to reply in this but the issue is NOT a simple equality of responsibility. First of all, men who pay child support are NOT actively engaging as parents. Parental guardianship is a state designation more than it is biological and because of that parental rights can and will be revoked under circumstances that the state deems worthy. However biological relation is always the primary legal precedence of parental guardianship. Most reasonably is due to our history; law has always considered blood relationships as a method of caretaker designation. It's hard to divorce law from that, and all things considered the United States has come a long way.

But anyways child support payments are NOT recognition as parental duty. The biological father isn't also the designated guardian in the event that they choose not to participate as the caretaker. Child support exists in order to support the child financially, not to raise and make decisions for them. BUT! If the biological father wishes to all-of-a-sudden be involved in a parental decision they WILL get their day in court for that again due to precedence. In short, being a parent is actually a choice men can make far more easily than a woman can.

Which leads to the problem with giving legal equality. The woman suffers a disproportionate burden on their health and economic viability. This isn't just because the father may or may not be around it's just a fact. The law is meant to reduce the burden of inequality among vulnerable populations which pregnant women and mothers are. The law is not meant to make "de facto" equality among genders, it provides "beneficence" and "justice" which aims to reduce the burden that exists. The law didn't make women a vulnerable population, it only recognizes them as one.

But yea I think time will reduce the legal precedence of blood relationship to parental responsibilities and duties. I am not sure if that will ever happen with regards to child support payments but I'm not sure I would want it to either. Sex is not a contract for childcare but as I've said before, you can't legislate biology; you can only develop around it. There's a pragmatism to child support from the father. It may not be that way in the future but I don't see it changing much.

I may comment on this a bit later. The issue of ethics and childcare is very torturous. I can remember a case of a lady and husband who had frozen embryos during their marriage. When they divorced, the mother still wanted to implant the embryos however the "father" wanted nothing to do with it, and yet the law would, by precedence, recognize him as the biological father. In an effort to prevent this (there is also inarguable evidence that this was a spiteful move...) he lied to the embryo clinic to destroy them. And they almost did.

 

[marplots]

How about a chain of abortion clinics right across the border? They'd have to claim they were raped to get around Mexico's laws, but might work. Then there's Misoprostol, apparently already in stock and available in Mexican pharmacies: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/he...omen-lured-to-mexico-in-search-abortion-pill/