• 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!

Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:44]

Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

I see, so because she has an ELECTIVE
INVASIVE procedure, that makes it ok to add an UN-ELECTIVE invasive procedure just because you like it.

And people wonder where the idea that conservatives are against women's rights comes from.

No it has nothing to do with me.

I chose to keep my children, well my wife and I chose.

Even with all of the false narratives and hyperbolic cries from the left about abortion one thing stays consistent.

That an abortion, 100% of the time ends a human life. It stops a beating heart.

So if additional regulations that do not take away the right of a woman to kill her baby might save a human life then I have no problem with it

In Texas we had a State legislator stand up with a "cort hanger" and " terpintime" barely speaking the language of English, demagoging this issue this week

It was par for the course when it comes to Liberal Democrats. Hypocritical with barely a grasp on the issue.
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

But there ARE restrictions on Fire Arms.

And you suppor tthem? And do you support them based on the same standard YOU just put forth, which is that any form of limitation is okay as long as it comes short of stopping it from being possible?

I can't mount of Morgan Gun to the bed of my F150, or shoot skeet with a RPG 7, or even own a fully automatic weapon.

Absolutely.

And I think you should be able to do the first one on private property, though believe it's within the states power to restrict it's access on public roads.

The RPG's issue is it falls into a grey area for me as I see the 2nd in terms of the notion of small arms, such as what an individual within a militia would own, rather than "artillery" such as canons and other such objects whose primary purposes is clearly for interstate warfare than personal defense. Still, if some private range wanted to offer up that experience I don't have a huge issue with it.

I'm also hardly a fan of the outright ban on owning a fully automatic weapon.

None of those things are actual good analogs however.

What you're suggesting is that the government should be able to force an individual to have to purchase and/or undertake an unnecessary private service for no legitimate government purpose NOR for any legitimate purpose relating to the original service being rendered.

So it would be akin to making individuals undertake a class where for an hour they're sat in a dark room and shown horrific images of gunshot wound victims while sounds of gunfire and screaming are occuring prior to being able to purchase any firearm...all for the purpose of making people really "think" about what they're purchasing.
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

But there ARE restrictions on Fire Arms.

I can't mount of Morgan Gun to the bed of my F150, or shoot skeet with a RPG 7, or even own a fully automatic weapon.

Restrictions that I'm ok with.

Ok. Let's make it illegal to sell, purchase, trade, gift, transfer, or construct firearms in a state, and illegal to transport them into the state from outside. Your right to bear arms isn't being infringed at all!
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

No it has nothing to do with me.

I chose to keep my children, well my wife and I chose.

Even with all of the false narratives and hyperbolic cries from the left about abortion one thing stays consistent.

That an abortion, 100% of the time ends a human life. It stops a beating heart.

So if additional regulations that do not take away the right of a woman to kill her baby might save a human life then I have no problem with it

In Texas we had a State legislator stand up with a "cort hanger" and " terpintime" barely speaking the language of English, demagoging this issue this week

It was par for the course when it comes to Liberal Democrats. Hypocritical with barely a grasp on the issue.

Yet again, so you are against women's rights in that you want an UN-ELECTIVE invasive procedure added that is NOT needed for an abortion simply to fuel your's and others self-righteous needs.

don't like abortions, DON'T HAVE ONE.
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

They are simply saying the person who wants an abortion must look at an ultrasound. What are the critics afraid of? That the person might change their mind,and realize that it's actually a life they are taking? They can still abort to their hearts desire,they would just have to face what they are really doing.
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

They are simply saying the person who wants an abortion must look at an ultrasound. What are the critics afraid of? That the person might change their mind,and realize that it's actually a life they are taking? They can still abort to their hearts desire,they would just have to face what they are really doing.

A transvaginal ultrasound. This involves sticking a large, painful object in a woman's vagina against her will and making it pulse in a low frequency, highly uncomfortable manner. Via government decree. Against the judgment of the patient and doctor. Seriously, if I did that it would be aggravated sexual assault.

And we're getting off-topic here, because the key part of the blocked bill isn't about ultrasounds, it's about a ridiculous hospital admitting requirement that is medically unnecessary and drastically reduces the availability of a legal medical procedure. By government decree. Which is suddenly ok when Republicans do it.
 
Last edited:
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

Requiring an ultrasound is just an increasingly desperate attempt by monotheists to guilt trip others into sharing values that they obviously don't share.................

If someone is solid in their belief that abortion is alright, viewing the child that person is about to murder, shouldn't bother them at all.
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

If someone is solid in their belief that abortion is alright, viewing the child that person is about to murder, shouldn't bother them at all.

If someone is solid in their belief that the government shouldn't be dictating medical procedures to you and your doctor, it would bother them substantially.
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

What are the critics afraid of?

Giving greater power to the government over the private market, specifically the medical market, and over what measures individuals must be governmentally mandated to undertake to partake in private services.
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

They are simply saying the person who wants an abortion must look at an ultrasound. What are the critics afraid of? That the person might change their mind,and realize that it's actually a life they are taking? They can still abort to their hearts desire,they would just have to face what they are really doing.

Gun owners are taught to identify the target before firing. Shouldn't this requirement be carried over to abortion?
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

If someone is solid in their belief that the government shouldn't be dictating medical procedures to you and your doctor, it would bother them substantially.

The government has a right to protect life against murder.
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

Gun owners are taught to identify the target before firing. Shouldn't this requirement be carried over to abortion?

Do gun owners have UN-ELECTED INVASIVE procedures done to their bodies before firing? No, you're comparing apples and oranges here.
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

And we're getting off-topic here, because the key part of the blocked bill isn't about ultrasounds, it's about a ridiculous hospital admitting requirement that is medically unnecessary and drastically reduces the availability of a legal medical procedure. By government decree. Which is suddenly ok when Republicans do it.

To some people, not all.

The difference between those who subscribe to a party and/or those who subscribe to an inconsistent and narrow portion of the ideology and those who subscribe to a consistent broad measure of it.
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

The government has a right to protect life against murder.

Well then you give the power to the government to save ANY life how it deems. Hence you love Obamacare then.
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

Gun owners are taught to identify the target before firing. Shouldn't this requirement be carried over to abortion?

And if your argument was for private educational classes that people could choose to undertake without government force, I'd agree with you
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

The government has a right to protect life against murder.

And until the government actually makes the killing of a baby through abortion illegal, this isn't a case of "murder" and as such that reasoning is not a legitimate government interest in the case.
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

This is the same stance you take on firearm ownership then? As long as the limitation doesn't STOP it from being POSSIBLE in some fashion then the Government can do it?
This is not a valid comparison. It is incumbent upon government to distinguish the difference between fire arm ownership and the possible elimination of a life. Principles are worthless if one cannot recognize the fundamental difference between those two things on their face.
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

Gun owners are taught to identify the target before firing. Shouldn't this requirement be carried over to abortion?

Mental gymnastics
medal_-_gold.jpg

This is not a valid comparison. It is incumbent upon government to distinguish the difference between fire arm ownership and the possible elimination of a life. Principles are worthless if one cannot recognize the fundamental difference between those two things on their face.

The government does not perceive abortion as taking a life.
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

And until the government actually makes the killing of a baby through abortion illegal, this isn't a case of "murder" and as such that reasoning is not a legitimate government interest in the case.

I don't agree. God decides what murder is, not some court.
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

I don't agree. God decides what murder is, not some court.

Ah screw it not worth continuing on this obvious derail.
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

I don't agree. God decides what murder is, not some court.

If you want to speak in terms of your personal views that's acceptable.

That's unquestionably, factually, untrue when you're speaking of the government.

The GOVERNMENT recognizes no specific god, nor specific religion, as the states authority NOR is any singular religious text legal precedent in and of itself within this country.

Under the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT something is MURDER when it is illegal UNDER THE LAW. The GOVERNMENT has the authority to act to certain degrees to protect against murder, when it falls within the bounds of what murder legally is UNDER THE LAW for THE GOVERNMENT.

God is not that Law, the Bible is not that Law, and Constitution and the laws that have sprung from it are.

The government does not derive any power to take actions contrary to it's constitutional limitations from "God".

You would have a fine argument if you had stated that you FEEL the government SHOULD act to protect against what you view as murder.

But you didn't, you stated that they have a "right" to. Governments are not people, governments have no inalienable rights, governments have the abilities set forth to them through their founding documents based on the social contract of the people who came together to form it. In our country, those "rights" are not to do as they feel in terms of "GODS" supposed laws to the contrary of the countries Constitution or legally passed laws.
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

I don't agree. God decides what murder is, not some court.
Wrong.

This is only you stating the way you THINK it should be and maybe that's the way it really does go down in the afterlife. Who knows. But here on earth we have laws written and enforced by man. Doubt me? Go out and shoot someone who you think deserves to die. Find out what happens...
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

This is not a valid comparison. It is incumbent upon government to distinguish the difference between fire arm ownership and the possible elimination of a life. Principles are worthless if one cannot recognize the fundamental difference between those two things on their face.

Sounding like a true anti-2nd amendment crusader there, prattling on about the "possible elimination of life" as an excuse for curtailing private citizens freedoms in the name of big government.

Find a way to make abortion illegal or to, at least, deem the fetus a citizen or legal person and thus creating legitimate legal grey area to push such things. Until such times, all you're doing is banging the drums for big government, increased fed power, and the expansion of the state. Congrats
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

Then enlighten us, what else does it do that is so controversial?

The judge stated it served no medical purpose for the making the doctor have admitting privileges at a local hospital. It would in effect close abortion clinics, unless the bill also includes a 'shall issue' clause for doctors like they do for CCLs.

You have read the bill, yes?
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

The admitting privledges issue seems a lot like the anti-2nd amendment individuals attempts to regulate clip size or ammunition. Attempting an end around by not removing the primary issue at hand, but rather creating significant hampering of directly related issues that cause a defacto removal or severe reduction in terms of the primary issue.
 
Back
Top Bottom