Page 35 of 48 FirstFirst ... 25333435363745 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 478

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

  1. #341
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    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.
    Yet, in some areas that is the law, and you must accept it as current law in those areas, apart from lobbying to change it and protesting, etc.

    Or going outside the law.

    THAT is my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    2.) well since abortion itself doesn't kill anything no they don't, 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't 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
    Abortion, in the vast majority of cases, ends the possibility that what is removed could develop into a functional human. This is my criteria for what constitutes a life, or in this case, a potential life - it may not be human yet, but it will be, given a chance and no inherent issues.

    Shooting an intruder IS killing a human. In such a situation, the intruder's right to life collides with the intrudee's right to life and/or property, and the law states (depending on the specific law in that area, and the circumstances of the shooting), the one intruded upon is in the right.

    In much the same way, (IMO) an abortion takes place when the future human's right to life (yes, I'm assigning a right to life to the ZEF, or whatever you call it) collides with the potential mother's right to choose (and possibly, right to life, depending on the case) - and the law has determined that the right to choose is paramount.

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    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
    In my mind, both positions are, depending on how argued, valid and accurate - even though directly opposed. Which is why I will not be happy with either position.

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    4.) not really because the wrong interpretation can negate the factuality
    Yet if you do not know the entire process behind an interpretation, how would you know that the fact had been invalidated?

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    5.) agreed
    sweet

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    6.) depending on the part i agree
    The two points I specifically clarified, which you labeled 2 and 3.

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    7.) i guess but opinions are just opinions
    Until they become law. Where did you think laws came from?

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    8.) that's cool we agree
    sweet x 2

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    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 wouldn't 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!
    It's science-fiction at the moment.

    And it would have to be a choice - the only choice removed would be killing the potential human (as I prefer to refer to the fetus/ZEF/whatever). The woman could choose to carry the child naturally, of course.
    Education.

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

  2. #342
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    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.
    In my mind, a fetus, or whatever you decide to call it, is a potential human. It will not (up to a point) survive outside the mother, yet if allowed to continue development, it MAY become a human.

    I do not think that removing that possibility is acceptable.


    However, when it comes into conflict with the right of a woman to choose, we HAVE to make a decision, and the right to choose wins out.

    In short, neither option is acceptable, but we must choose one anyway.
    Education.

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

  3. #343
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,784

    Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    1.)Yet, in some areas that is the law, and you must accept it as current law in those areas, apart from lobbying to change it and protesting, etc.

    Or going outside the law.

    THAT is my point.

    2.)Abortion, in the vast majority of cases, ends the possibility that what is removed could develop into a functional human. This is my criteria for what constitutes a life, or in this case, a potential life - it may not be human yet, but it will be, given a chance and no inherent issues.

    Shooting an intruder IS killing a human. In such a situation, the intruder's right to life collides with the intrudee's right to life and/or property, and the law states (depending on the specific law in that area, and the circumstances of the shooting), the one intruded upon is in the right.

    In much the same way, (IMO) an abortion takes place when the future human's right to life (yes, I'm assigning a right to life to the ZEF, or whatever you call it) collides with the potential mother's right to choose (and possibly, right to life, depending on the case) - and the law has determined that the right to choose is paramount.

    3.) In my mind, both positions are, depending on how argued, valid and accurate - even though directly opposed. Which is why I will not be happy with either position.

    4.)Yet if you do not know the entire process behind an interpretation, how would you know that the fact had been invalidated?

    sweet

    The two points I specifically clarified, which you labeled 2 and 3.

    5.) Until they become law. Where did you think laws came from?

    sweet x 2

    6.) It's science-fiction at the moment.

    7.) And it would have to be a choice - the only choice removed would be killing the potential human (as I prefer to refer to the fetus/ZEF/whatever). The woman could choose to carry the child naturally, of course.
    1.) but i dont have too

    2.) i agree the right to choose is paramount hence me being prochoice with limits

    3.) will i agree i wouldnt be happy with either but i also dont seem them as valid because they typically are hypocritical/contradictory.

    4.) because facts dont care about interpretation they just are.


    5.) currently its about rights though

    6.) i think it will be forever but of course we will never know

    7.) accept the choice to risk endangerment and possible life of the woman. UNless again the teleportation/removing of the ZEF has ZERO risk/impact.
    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

  4. #344
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) but i dont have too
    You do have to recognize it as legal. Because it is. Much like, if suddenly the law said that all abortions were illegal, you would not be allowed to have one performed legally. Similar, not same, situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    2.) i agree the right to choose is paramount hence me being pro-choice with limits
    And I believe that while the right to choose is legally paramount, morally neither is paramount. Thus I am both anti-abortion and pro-choice.

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    3.) I will agree i wouldn't be happy with either but i also don't seem them as valid because they typically are hypocritical/contradictory.
    That's my point though. They ARE contradictory, and yet, they are both right.

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    4.) because facts don't care about interpretation they just are.
    Yes and no. Facts themselves do not. but facts are meaningless without context - and how context is interpreted determines what someone will understand from a given media. Poorly interpreted or out of context facts can be used to promote something completely opposite of their actual meaning.

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    5.) currently its about rights though
    What?

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    6.) i think it will be forever but of course we will never know
    The possibility exists. I hope otherwise though, because if it never changes I'll never agree with either side of the current abortion debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    7.) accept the choice to risk endangerment and possible life of the woman. Unless again the teleportation/removing of the ZEF has ZERO risk/impact.
    Unless the risk is unreasonable, I would think it a reasonable risk to allow both parties the chance at life and freedom.

    Determining what is unreasonable is, of course, the question.
    Education.

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

  5. #345
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,784

    Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    1.)You do have to recognize it as legal. Because it is. Much like, if suddenly the law said that all abortions were illegal, you would not be allowed to have one performed legally. Similar, not same, situation.

    2.)And I believe that while the right to choose is legally paramount, morally neither is paramount. Thus I am both anti-abortion and pro-choice.

    3.)That's my point though. They ARE contradictory, and yet, they are both right.

    4.)Yes and no. Facts themselves do not. but facts are meaningless without context - and how context is interpreted determines what someone will understand from a given media. Poorly interpreted or out of context facts can be used to promote something completely opposite of their actual meaning.

    5.)What?

    6.) The possibility exists. I hope otherwise though, because if it never changes I'll never agree with either side of the current abortion debate.

    7.) Unless the risk is unreasonable, I would think it a reasonable risk to allow both parties the chance at life and freedom.

    8.)Determining what is unreasonable is, of course, the question.
    1.) yes which is nothing like "accept"
    2.) and i am the same although morals are meaningless to the situation when it comes to rights
    3.) no i dont mean the sides like pro-life vs pro choice i mean those extremes views are contradictory to the logic that is used for them typically. Not always but typically.
    4.) thus negating the factuality
    5.) you brought up law and thats not quite the same as rights
    6.) and thats just it, the extremists and nut balls make it "two sides" but in reality its not
    7.) and there it is, who determines reasonable and where is the force applied.

    now im not disagree, in my system earlier of 21 weeks the same dilemma exists

    8.) agreed agreed agreed

    this is why currently i pick something in the middle that attempts to respect BOTH lives and attempts to grant both lives equality even though its impossible.

    funny thing is though only SOME (certainly not all) members of one side become uncivil and call me evil, despicable, say i should be in jail, im just like hitler and slave owners etc LMAO but nobody takes them seriously anyway
    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

  6. #346
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,776

    Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    So you can do whatever you like if you deem another life as not "quality" life?
    What other life? Are you referring to a 'potential' life that a woman is carrying? Only she, the woman, can decide what the value of that life "may be". If she chooses not to risk her own life or long-term health for it, then that is up to her. It is a complete unknown, while she is a viable part of society. Only she can consider what the impact of a new baby in her life would mean. Only she can decide if others would end up being responsible for it...and if that was fair.

    The 'quality' of the unborn is completely unknown....it can only be judged by it's impact on its host until it is born. That is just IMO.
    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. #347
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,776

    Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    It is a "current" human. It's a living, growing organism in the species homo sapien. It is nothing other than a human.
    Anything else on the rest of it?
    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.

  8. #348
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,776

    Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    In my mind, a fetus, or whatever you decide to call it, is a potential human. It will not (up to a point) survive outside the mother, yet if allowed to continue development, it MAY become a human.

    I do not think that removing that possibility is acceptable.


    However, when it comes into conflict with the right of a woman to choose, we HAVE to make a decision, and the right to choose wins out.

    In short, neither option is acceptable, but we must choose one anyway.
    Well, the woman must choose.

    And many do not choose abortion, which seems to go unnoticed here. It one choice....and many do not choose it.
    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. #349
    King Conspiratard
    Dr. Chuckles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-14 @ 03:04 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    12,895

    Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Scrabaholic View Post
    Where did I ever say cows are people?

    Abortion is not murder. Murder is the ILLEGAL killing of a person by a person. If it's legal, it CANNOT be murder.
    actually we have covered before how murder is not solely a legal term. Hardly surprising that you would continue ignoring that though

  10. #350
    Struggler
    JayDubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    17,181

    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.
    Did you learn English with a dictionary where "basic" meant relying on complete falsehoods?

    Banning abortion does not infringe on anyone's rights.

Page 35 of 48 FirstFirst ... 25333435363745 ... 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
  •