Page 34 of 48 FirstFirst ... 24323334353644 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 478

Thread: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional [W:167:202:330]

  1. #331
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,754

    Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) yes it 100% factually is based on the definition of the word accept and force. your personal accptance is still intact and nothing is forced on you

    when you can change this fact please let me know, if you have ONE example that shows factual force/acceptance ill galdly agree

    2.) no because that would be factually not true as already pointed out all those that think like you just described factually do not accept it and if they do its their choice its not forced. as far as "feelings" go they are meaningless to facts.

    equal rights is not national for gays yet, i dont "accept" that

    3.) no i wouldn't "think" that it would factually be force

    4.) forced to "accept" no of course not because my feelings dont matter facts and definitions do
    there would be force but it would be on my acceptance

    law can not force acceptance

    5.) i agree because that point is based on opinion or what i think or what you think its just factual

    6.) no i would not and no it would require me to go over the edge, are you suggesting all prolifers are over the edge? they are not, actually many are quite reasonable, the honest and educated ones, but they still do not accept abortion.

    is abortion "happening" yes does one have to accept its ok, no of ocures not

    sorry acceptance can not be force, its impossible

    but people can "feel" how ever they want, their feelings are irrelevant
    I missed a bit in (your lable) 6 - I mean "if you went over the edge and resisted beyond what is legally allowed".

    Understand this, however.

    I consider the two sides of this argument to be nearly equal in their validity - both have valid points, and both are right.
    The technology does not currently exist to allow a solution which is even remotely acceptable to me.

    IMO, both allowing and disallowing abortion is wrong.


    Also, you are incorrect that feelings are irrelevant - feelings are the entire point, actually - we wouldn't even have law regarding this if feelings were irrelevant.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  2. #332
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,835

    Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    1.)I missed a bit in (your lable) 6 - I mean "if you went over the edge and resisted beyond what is legally allowed".

    Understand this, however.

    2.)I consider the two sides of this argument to be nearly equal in their validity - both have valid points
    3.) and both are right.
    The technology does not currently exist to allow a solution which is even remotely acceptable to me.
    4.) IMO, both allowing and disallowing abortion is wrong.
    1.) oh sorry i misunderstood, my mistake

    but why is that required, you can still be legal and not accepted, like i said i dont accept discrimination against gay and denying them equal rights but its legal in my state

    2.) well i partial agree and disagree if you are talking about people that want abortion mostly or completely banned and people who want abortion mostly or totally unlimited then they have no valid points based on legal and human rights but they are free to thier opinions

    now if we are tlakign about the people more in the middle i agree with you 100%

    3.) this i do not agree with because it needs more defined some on both sides are factually wrong

    4.) this i agree with 100% but that just makes it an agreed opinion

    for me my stance is simple

    there are TWO lives in the debate, TWO.
    being where the ZEF resides, how and when it comes to viability and term there is factually no way to grant equal rights in the situation and there is factual not scenario where one doesn't lose.

    I cant support unlimited abortion especially after viability because it is a life and supporting it up until 8 months and 29 days just seem unfathomable to me.
    I also cant support banning abortion because i just cant bring myself to violate a womans current legal and human rights based on something that isnt even viable yet. a woman is already born and viable and forcing her against her will to risk her life and violating her legal and human rights i just cant do.

    now after viablity, yes she finds herself on the losing end sometimes just like the ZEF does before viability.

    f it was up to me its be pro-choice till 21 weeks earliest possible viability and then after that pro-life case by case
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  3. #333
    Relentless Thinking Fury
    ChezC3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,144

    Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    ..................................
    The repetition is becoming tedious. Enjoy life, don't kill anything, take care..

  4. #334
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,754

    Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) oh sorry i misunderstood, my mistake

    but why is that required, you can still be legal and not accepted, like i said i dont accept discrimination against gay and denying them equal rights but its legal in my state
    I mean that you must accept it as legal even if you do not agree that it should be legal, although you can protest and the like....nothing more than that, however - unless you act outside the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    2.) well i partial agree and disagree if you are talking about people that want abortion mostly or completely banned and people who want abortion mostly or totally unlimited then they have no valid points based on legal and human rights but they are free to their opinions

    now if we are talking about the people more in the middle i agree with you 100%
    People who want abortion mostly or completely banned have a valid point when they say that an abortion kills a current or future human (depending on how you define such).

    People who want abortion to be unlimited or virtually unlimited (say, only disallowing such things as partial-birth abortion, perhaps) also have a valid point - unless a woman can always and without question remove the developing child inside her, there are limits on her right to choose.

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    3.) this i do not agree with because it needs more defined some on both sides are factually wrong
    Facts are open to interpretation. But yes, some positions are counter to facts. To clarify, both are right in part. Mainly the points I mention above.

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    4.) this i agree with 100% but that just makes it an agreed opinion
    It's a start though.

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    for me my stance is simple

    there are TWO lives in the debate, TWO.
    being where the ZEF resides, how and when it comes to viability and term there is factually no way to grant equal rights in the situation and there is factual not scenario where one doesn't lose.

    I cant support unlimited abortion especially after viability because it is a life and supporting it up until 8 months and 29 days just seem unfathomable to me.
    I also cant support banning abortion because i just cant bring myself to violate a woman's current legal and human rights based on something that isn't even viable yet. a woman is already born and viable and forcing her against her will to risk her life and violating her legal and human rights i just cant do.

    now after viability, yes she finds herself on the losing end sometimes just like the ZEF does before viability.

    f it was up to me its be pro-choice till 21 weeks earliest possible viability and then after that pro-life case by case
    I agree. Or at least in general.

    Personally, I will never be satisfied with the situation until both of the lives you mention have an equal chance of surviving - but this can only happen if the two can be separated somehow - which is not currently possible.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  5. #335
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,001

    Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    So the quality of a life is in the eyes of another?
    For herself? I'd say yes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  6. #336
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,001

    Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by ChezC3 View Post
    The repetition is becoming tedious. Enjoy life, don't kill anything, take care..
    Your sanctimoniousness is noted. As is the fact that you could not respond with any justification for your overall intolerance for those with differing beliefs and behavior in a country that was built on diversity. And the recognition of the lack of equal rights of the fetus (because you could not offer a rebuttal).

    You are welcome to your beliefs. I hope that you are never in the position to force them on others....and no one is attempting to force abortion on you. (You had no rebuttal for that either.)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  7. #337
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,835

    Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    1.)I mean that you must accept it as legal even if you do not agree that it should be legal, although you can protest and the like....nothing more than that, however - unless you act outside the law.

    2.) People who want abortion mostly or completely banned have a valid point when they say that an abortion kills a current or future human (depending on how you define such).

    3.) People who want abortion to be unlimited or virtually unlimited (say, only disallowing such things as partial-birth abortion, perhaps) also have a valid point - unless a woman can always and without question remove the developing child inside her, there are limits on her right to choose.

    4.) Facts are open to interpretation.

    5.) But yes, some positions are counter to facts.

    6.)To clarify, both are right in part. Mainly the points I mention above.

    7.)It's a start though.

    8.) I agree. Or at least in general.

    9.) Personally, I will never be satisfied with the situation until both of the lives you mention have an equal chance of surviving - but this can only happen if the two can be separated somehow - which is not currently possible.
    1.) got it but as soon as you say accept it goes back to what ive been saying. I dont accept people denying equal rights to gays.

    2.) well since abortion itself doesnt kill anything no they dont, abortion end pregnancy. The life of the ZEF is meaningless to the abortion. This is why there are laws in place for when the ZEF lives.
    now with that said yes the super vast majority of ZEFs don not live because of how the procedure is performed and because they are done before viability.

    But pointing this in this way is no more valid than saying shooting an intruder kills a human.

    its again a crossover and collision of rights, one must be choose and this is ONE sided

    3.) same thing as 2 but the opposite direction. A crossover and collision of rights again and this way is also very one sides in the other direction.

    now be clear, i am fine with anybody having these opinions they are free to them just like i am to mine but where it gets tricky is typically thier defense of 2 or 3 is hypocritical. People talk about life and human rights and killing and those things go BOTH ways.

    so while you can say they have a point, to argue in one direction ignores there equal counter point

    4.) not really because the wrong interpretation can negate the factuality

    5.) agreed

    6.) depending on the part i agree

    7.) i guess but opinions are just opinions

    8.) thats cool we agree

    9.) if this was possible it would be awesome but i dont think it will ever happen.

    even if something awesome like an eco-womb was invented unless the ZEF could be teleported it would still be tricky because the procedure would have to be forced on her and it also wouldnt change viability.

    But again i do agree with you, if there was a solution that actually granted equal rights and equal treatment i would elected that choice in a second!
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  8. #338
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,001

    Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post

    People who want abortion mostly or completely banned have a valid point when they say that an abortion kills a current or future human (depending on how you define such).

    .
    At it's most basic, the crux of the matter comes down to the fact that you cannot do anything about the unborn without infringing on the rights of the woman. And as a society and legally, we have recognized...even if we dont like it...that the fetus's rights do not supersede the woman's.

    It's not a 'current' human....it may never be born. We dont know and many are miscarried. And should a woman give up her rights for a 'future' human? That is a question for only her. Many women, pregnant but with life-threatening diseases, choose the life of the fetus over their own. Does anyone attempt to deprive her of THAT choice?

    As a society, and legally, we have acknowledged that the fetus is not equal. Even many pro-lifers recognize this: it's acceptable to terminate the fetus to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest. And she is absolved of guilt. Why?

    Same examples *sigh*:
    --do we, in America, have any laws that allow us to kill a person (born) to take their liver to save another person? No, we dont even allow that with convicted felons who have already had some of their Constitutional rights taken away.

    --do we allow the killing of a toddler that is the product of rape or incest to protect the mother from mental anquish?

    I know of no such laws. And no such recognition by society.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  9. #339
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    For herself? I'd say yes.
    So you can do whatever you like if you deem another life as not "quality" life?
    ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” --- Ben Franklin

    Quote Originally Posted by The German View Post
    Sterotypes are mostly based on truths.

  10. #340
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    At it's most basic, the crux of the matter comes down to the fact that you cannot do anything about the unborn without infringing on the rights of the woman. And as a society and legally, we have recognized...even if we dont like it...that the fetus's rights do not supersede the woman's.

    It's not a 'current' human....it may never be born. We dont know and many are miscarried. And should a woman give up her rights for a 'future' human? That is a question for only her. Many women, pregnant but with life-threatening diseases, choose the life of the fetus over their own. Does anyone attempt to deprive her of THAT choice?

    As a society, and legally, we have acknowledged that the fetus is not equal. Even many pro-lifers recognize this: it's acceptable to terminate the fetus to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest. And she is absolved of guilt. Why?

    Same examples *sigh*:
    --do we, in America, have any laws that allow us to kill a person (born) to take their liver to save another person? No, we dont even allow that with convicted felons who have already had some of their Constitutional rights taken away.

    --do we allow the killing of a toddler that is the product of rape or incest to protect the mother from mental anquish?

    I know of no such laws. And no such recognition by society.
    It is a "current" human. It's a living, growing organism in the species homo sapien. It is nothing other than a human.
    ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” --- Ben Franklin

    Quote Originally Posted by The German View Post
    Sterotypes are mostly based on truths.

Page 34 of 48 FirstFirst ... 24323334353644 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •