• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas law requires women to hear description of fetus before abortion

taxigirl said:
I don't think Connery is talking about common disabilities. There are several disorders in which a child may live only a few hours or weeks or be born with severe malformations that can be very painful. This makes a difficult situation for everyone, especially an infant in pain.
Click to expand...

no doubt. but you put down dogs for reasons like that. not human beings.
 
X Factor said:
Oh, is this another rape baby scenario? Everyone does know how a rare a situation that actually is, right?
Click to expand...

Not so rare that this law ignores that possibility. "Exceptions to the law are made ... if the woman is pregnant as a result of a sexual assault". These are real problems that a woman must face. Many times a sexual assault goes unreported as the victim does not have the wherewithal to come forward. This law further denudes a woman of her sense of self and dignity.
 
cpwill said:
interesting. the only merciful option for a disabled child is to kill it. you stay the F away from my down syndrome cousin.
Click to expand...


Your response an uninformed one and clearly over the top. I am opposed to this law and think it was poorly drafted I do not see a definition which clearly delineates what a irreversible medical condition or abnormality for the purposes of this law.
 
Arcana XV said:
I don't understand this comment. Are dogs more deserving of compassion than a severely deformed, suffering human being?
Click to expand...

you have it in reverse. i have the right to kill my dog because it is my property. my grandchild is not my property, but a human being with inherent God-given rights, the same as my children, myself, or my wife. my father in law deals with constant pain. me randomly shoving a needle into his cranium before sawing his limbs off isn't the answer to that.
 
cpwill said:
you have it in reverse. i have the right to kill my dog because it is my property. my grandchild is not my property, but a human being with inherent God-given rights, the same as my children, myself, or my wife. my father in law deals with constant pain. me randomly shoving a needle into his cranium before sawing his limbs off isn't the answer to that.
Click to expand...

"God given rights"?
 
cpwill said:
you have it in reverse. i have the right to kill my dog because it is my property. my grandchild is not my property, but a human being with inherent God-given rights, the same as my children, myself, or my wife. my father in law deals with constant pain. me randomly shoving a needle into his cranium before sawing his limbs off isn't the answer to that.
Click to expand...

I still don't understand why you would be kind enough to kill an animal in pain, but let a human being suffer an unnecessary hell. :shrug:
 
cpwill said:
:). yeah, I was reading instead of watching, and sliced my finger open good - we got out of here pretty quick once i had a makeshift compression bandage on, and i left the computer o
i'll look back for the post. but typing hurts - my reply may be short.
Click to expand...

Owie. I know.those hurt. I hope it is ok
 
cpwill said:
no doubt. but you put down dogs for reasons like that. not human beings.
Click to expand...

A young friend of mine and his wife found out that she was pregnant with craniopagus twins. He's Roman Catholic. The expenditure plus the post-op suffering recovery of the infants was too much to consider allowing them to be born. I know that head conjoined twins from Sudan were separated about 12 or so years ago. I haven't heard much about those boys since they were quite small and wearing helmets. I hope they are living normal lives. The many operations that they had were done pro bono to allow for the benefits of advanced medical operations.

I think my friend and his wife made the right decision. The Sudanese couple might have made the same decision if they would have had proper prenatal care.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Alright, I'm sick of this crap.

First off, a fetus is attached to it's mother. It's something called a ****ing umbilical cord. Until very late into the prgnancy can a fetus survive on it's own.

Until then, it is entirely dependant on the mother. It is a part of her. It is a piece of her body. She has every right in the world to do what she wants with her body. You, nor anyone else in the world has any right what so ever, to command her. This is blatant stupid attempts at convincing her to make an already difficult desicion. This is borderline mental harrassment.

You are a ****ing idiot and are the epitome of ignorance and superstition that should have died in the dark ages.

Good day to you, sir.
Click to expand...

what an idiotic reply. children are incapable of surviing on their own for years after the umbilical cord has been cut. They are totally dependent on others to survive. That doesn't mean we can kill them.
 
taxigirl said:
Owie. I know.those hurt. I hope it is ok
Click to expand...

5 more stitches for the tally. I suspect I shall survive, as long as I remember to treat with alcohol :mrgreen:
 
Arcana XV said:
I still don't understand why you would be kind enough to kill an animal in pain, but let a human being suffer an unnecessary hell.
Click to expand...

A Life That Isn't Comfortable Isn't Worth Living?

time to start killing meth addicts.


no. they are human beings and have inherent rights. just as much as you do.
 
ARealConservative said:
what an idiotic reply. children are incapable of surviing on their own for years after the umbilical cord has been cut. They are totally dependent on others to survive. That doesn't mean we can kill them.
Click to expand...

That's a totally false comparison. A child dependent on society is a bit different from a fetus depending on the woman's oxygen, food, and blood to sustain itself, in the process causing varying degrees of harm to her body.
 
Similar to the Virginia law, I oppose this not on some notion that its the woman's inherently right to kill whatever is growing insider her but rather the government shouldn't have the role of mandating that private citizens purchase a private good/service in order to partake in another private legal good/service.

That said, not similar to the Virginia Law, I am not a citizen of Texas and thus my outrage at it or significant issue and disagreement is significantly lessened. I have an issue with the one in Virginia because its done by people who are my representitives. While I may disagree with the Texas law, its that states citizens decision on what they want their state government to do or not. I disagree with it, strongly, but my anger and desire to fight it is significantly less.
 
kerussll said:
That's a totally false comparison. A child dependent on society is a bit different from a fetus depending on the woman's oxygen, food, and blood to sustain itself, in the process causing varying degrees of harm to her body.
Click to expand...

I agree.
Until a fetus becomes viable it is totaly depending on the pregnant woman's body to sustain itself.

Edited:
typo
 
Last edited:
kerussll said:
That's a totally false comparison. A child dependent on society is a bit different from a fetus depending on the woman's oxygen, food, and blood to sustain itself, in the process causing varying degrees of harm to her body.
Click to expand...

it is a bit different, but it isn't substantially different. In both situations, a person is being forced to provide for a person that can't survive on their own.

the only difference is some people are ok forcing this on a faceless "society", but not on a named individual.
 
Apparently some people think it's ok to murder a person as long as you don't actually meet them. It's their right to think that. However, what about the father's rights? Two people having consented with creating a life and some selfish murderous b**** can decide that some poor guys children are worthless and can just abort them because she wants to and there is nothing he can say or do about it. That's pretty messed up.
 
taxigirl said:
The funds that go to Planned Parenthood and other women's health care providers does not fund abortions. The funds are allocated for things such as breast cancer and cervical cancer screenings, STD tests and education and a whole variety of things that have nothing to do with abortion. These organizations do much much more and abortion is only a very small part of what they do, the government funds do NOT fund abortions.
Click to expand...


BULL ****! PROVE IT.


j-mac
 
muciti said:
Apparently some people think it's ok to murder a person as long as you don't actually meet them. It's their right to think that. However, what about the father's rights? Two people having consented with creating a life and some selfish murderous b**** can decide that some poor guys children are worthless and can just abort them because she wants to and there is nothing he can say or do about it. That's pretty messed up.
Click to expand...

Oh, the woe! All those murderous bitches abusing all those poor guys. You know what, I can't tell anything about the kind of person you are from the above statement...
 
ARealConservative said:
it is a bit different, but it isn't substantially different. In both situations, a person is being forced to provide for a person that can't survive on their own.

the only difference is some people are ok forcing this on a faceless "society", but not on a named individual.
Click to expand...

Nobody is ever forced to care for a child. We, as a society, have chosen to give money to agencies that provide for children. Which is drastically different from donating our bodies to the cause.
 
j-mac said:
BULL ****! PROVE IT.


j-mac
Click to expand...

You can find their annual report online. With a little more diligence you can find their financial filings as a 501c3 org. These will outline for you where the restricted funds were spent. The docunents you find should have been audited by an independent auditor.
 
kerussll said:
Nobody is ever forced to care for a child. We, as a society, have chosen to give money to agencies that provide for children. Which is drastically different from donating our bodies to the cause.
Click to expand...

"we as a society" are still forcing people to contribute against there will. you can try to cover it in all the rose petals imaginable, it is still force.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom