• 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!

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

Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

You're polishing a turd. He won't leave a the discussion until he declares his opinions to be facts. Source all you want, he just denies and reiterates that his opinions are the facts. And if you come close to the reportable line, he changes tone and says stick to the topic right after repeating yet again, his opinions are the facts. It's a tried and true tactic and I'm prohibitted from calling it any of those things you just mentioned.
Eh.

Doesn't bother me that much.

Of course I haven't been opposite him on a discussion much.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Eh.

Doesn't bother me that much.

Of course I haven't been opposite him on a discussion much.

Oh, just have two or three; that's all you'll need. After, you can just plug in the boilerplate. Irrespective of topic, it never changes. :lol:
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

I leave that up to the woman.

So the quality of a life is in the eyes of another?
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

1.)My statement (which you have labled 3) is NOT false.

2.)If you, for example, believed that abortion was wrong, and that in allowing it was tantamount to legalizing the murder of helpless children (which many anti-abortion persons do believe).

You're telling me you wouldn't feel forced into accepting something totally unacceptable, if the law allowed abortions.

3.) Similarly, if you believed that abortion was acceptable, and that allowing it was the only way to be fair to women, you would think that disallowing it was tantamount to forcing women to carry a child, with all the risks to life and health that go with that process.

4.) If the law disallowed abortions (completely, or even "only in the event of rape or if the life of the women is in danger).

In that situation, would you not feel forced into accepting something totally unacceptable to you?

----------------

5.) Your point about the impossibility of actually being forced to fully accept something is valid.

6.)However, you would still have to accept that the law encoded something you found reprehensible, and (unless you, IMO, went over the edge) would have to accept that it was/was not happening.

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 :shrug:

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
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Moderator's Warning:
Folks, keep it civil. Avoid personal remarks. Some here are pushing the line, and at least one is over it.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

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 :shrug:

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.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

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
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

..................................
The repetition is becoming tedious. Enjoy life, don't kill anything, take care..
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

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.

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.

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.

4.) this i agree with 100% but that just makes it an agreed opinion
It's a start though.

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.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

So the quality of a life is in the eyes of another?

For herself? I'd say yes.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

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.)
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

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. :shrug:

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!
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

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.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

For herself? I'd say yes.

So you can do whatever you like if you deem another life as not "quality" life?
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

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.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

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.

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. :shrug:

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.

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.

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?

5.) agreed
sweet

6.) depending on the part i agree
The two points I specifically clarified, which you labeled 2 and 3.

7.) i guess but opinions are just opinions
Until they become law. Where did you think laws came from?

8.) that's cool we agree
sweet x 2

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.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

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.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

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 :shrug:

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.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

1.) but i dont have too :shrug:
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.) 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.

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.

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.

5.) currently its about rights though
What?

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.

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.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

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
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

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.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

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?
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

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.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

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
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom