• 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!

U.S. judge rules against Louisiana abortion restrictions

Paleocon said:
Ad hominem.
Click to expand...

Well you could refute it by clarifying your position on public assistance to help support the families such legislation would force into existance.
 
Lursa said:
We've covered this ground before. Correct, he is not interested in the Constitution. He prefers a governing system called the Catholic Confessional State. This is his stated position.
Click to expand...

Then I am half right. He is still anti-American.
 
Soho gator said:
No my solution would be accretive. Everyone (women) gets a set of bolt ones. We can fund this by eliminating ETD drugs from insurance coverage.
Click to expand...

This seems sexist. What about the men? What can we get?
 
calamity said:
A country which forces people who do not want children or can't afford them or doesn't have the maturity to raise them is doomed. Voluntarily aborting those pregnancies, even if the numbers are in the hundred of thousands, is far less damaging. If you don't believe me, go walk the streets where the nation's unwanted, ill-raised children live, preferably at night. Report back what you find.
Click to expand...

Don't think he would do much reporting from the hospital/grave.
 
Paleocon said:
At no point have I or anyone else (except those who support murdering invalids like Terry Schiavo) said anything about starving anyone.

Please try another red herring.
Click to expand...

Can you explain why you think Terry Schiavo was murdered?
 
ajn678 said:
Don't think he would do much reporting from the hospital/grave.
Click to expand...

He could make it through, if he played his cards right. I'd make no bets on him knowing how to do that though.
 
danarhea said:
Then I am half right. He is still anti-American.
Click to expand...

Theocrat. He's taking a very anti-constitutional, Thomas Jefferson hating position, one often taken by religious extremists. I view them as Pre-constitutionists.
 
digsbe said:
Here's the thing about these though... States have a right to regulate medical practice.
Click to expand...

States also have a right to regulate commerce and so does the Fed. How'd you feel if a state, or the Feds, said that christian-owned businesses (ex Hobby Lobby) had to provide insurance that covers abortions, or they forbid church owned businesses from discriminating against gays, non-christians, etc and had to hire them as priests?
 
Deuce said:
All these guys have to do to convince me is to answer a few questions:

1) What medical complication arises that necessitates this rule?
2) How often does that complication arise?
3) How is this complication mitigated by being within 30 miles of a hospital? Remember that this is one-way, so an ambulance would have to potentially travel 60 miles to bring the patient to the hospital. That's not exactly "internal hemorrhaging and needs immediate surgery" kind of response time.
Click to expand...

4.) does the medical community support and also want this change
5.) is this change being applied to ALL medical procedure in the same class as abortion.

Its all a blanket of dishonest that anybody honest can see straight through.
 
Scrabaholic said:
If he does that, he should be thrown in jail just like Kim Davis was.
Click to expand...

Solution to that is also simple, have state police protection.

ThaiBoxer said:
So I guess you okay with judges ignoring Heller v D.C. too right?
Click to expand...

I don't agree with Heller v D.C., so I would approve of a court ruling upholding a gun control law. Though if you're referring to whether executive officials should enforce a law that the courts have overturned based on Heller, no, they shouldn't because gun regulation is a prudential matter whereas murder prohibition is not.

Lursa said:
A country that treats its women with no respect for their lives and futures and as 2nd class citizens has no future...that anyone wants to be part of.
Click to expand...

Given that by your standards, most countries throughout history have done this, your statement is manifestly false.

Lursa said:
Well you could refute it by clarifying your position on public assistance to help support the families such legislation would force into existance.
Click to expand...

If you want my position on that, start a thread about it. I'm not going to derail this thread with that red herring.

ajn678 said:
Can you explain why you think Terry Schiavo was murdered?
Click to expand...

She was willfully starved to death by her caretakers. The local police even forcibly prevented attempts to hydrate her.

If a parent had done the same thing on their own, they would be charged with murder.
 
Paleocon said:
Solution to that is also simple, have state police protection.

I don't agree with Heller v D.C., so I would approve of a court ruling upholding a gun control law. Though if you're referring to whether executive officials should enforce a law that the courts have overturned based on Heller, no, they shouldn't because gun regulation is a prudential matter whereas murder prohibition is not.

Given that by your standards, most countries throughout history have done this, your statement is manifestly false.

If you want my position on that, start a thread about it. I'm not going to derail this thread with that red herring.

She was willfully starved to death by her caretakers. The local police even forcibly prevented attempts to hydrate her.

If a parent had done the same thing on their own, they would be charged with murder.
Click to expand...

A parent would not have been charged with murder if the circumstances were the same as they were with Terry Schiavo, brain dead.
 
roguenuke said:
A parent would not have been charged with murder if the circumstances were the same as they were with Terry Schiavo, brain dead.
Click to expand...

Terry Schiavo wasn't brain dead.
 
Paleocon said:
Terry Schiavo wasn't brain dead.
Click to expand...

According to multiple doctors, and the medical examiner, she was essentially brain dead. Legally, she was being kept alive by various life support methods, which her closest legal relative, in this case her husband, has a right to stop and no one else is allowed to make any other decision in the matter unless they can show some legitimate reason why she should not be taken off life support. Her "persistent vegetative state" was not ending, again, according to multiple doctors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case

"An EEG showed no measurable brain activity." and "After her death, the autopsy showed signs of long-term and irreversible damage to her brain consistent with PVS."
 
roguenuke said:
According to multiple doctors, and the medical examiner, she was essentially brain dead. Legally, she was being kept alive by various life support methods, which her closest legal relative, in this case her husband, has a right to stop and no one else is allowed to make any other decision in the matter unless they can show some legitimate reason why she should not be taken off life support. Her "persistent vegetative state" was not ending, again, according to multiple doctors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case

"An EEG showed no measurable brain activity." and "After her death, the autopsy showed signs of long-term and irreversible damage to her brain consistent with PVS."
Click to expand...

It's not my problem that you don't know the difference between a persistent vegetative state and brain death.
 
Paleocon said:
It's not my problem that you don't know the difference between a persistent vegetative state and brain death.
Click to expand...

The law allows for a persistent vegetative state to be enough to stop life support for a person, including removing feeding tubes. She could not survive on her own, without medical devices (she wasn't even able to swallow on her own).
 
roguenuke said:
The law allows for a persistent vegetative state to be enough to stop life support for a person, including removing feeding tubes. She could not survive on her own, without medical devices (she wasn't even able to swallow on her own).
Click to expand...

I am aware of the current laws on the subject.
 
Paleocon said:
I am aware of the current laws on the subject.
Click to expand...

Then your argument is basically over semantics. She had no brain activity on an EEG. The only brain functions she had were completely involuntary (very basic heartbeat metabolic functions) and she could not continue to live without consistent medical interference since she couldn't even swallow.
 
Paleocon said:
I am aware of the current laws on the subject.
Click to expand...

This is another area where Republicans completely twist themselves around with their religious beliefs. Republicans very often say "You can't play god" to people that are pro-choice, yet they often oppose the ability for someone who is solely being kept alive by machines to be removed from these machines. Again, Republicans are not worried about the quality of someone's life, they just care that they are still "alive" in their eyes. They believe it is god's choice on when someone dies, yet they attempt to keep people alive who would be dead by machines. Utter hypocrisy.
 
Paleocon said:
Given that by your standards, most countries throughout history have done this, your statement is manifestly false.
Click to expand...

Dont be silly, almost without exception, most societies, and all free societies, over the millenia have more towards more equality and respect for women....and with the continued expansion of the human race. And of course, I did say 'or would want to,' meaning that IMO, few people would desire to live in such a tyrannical and repressive society as you propose in the Catholic Confessional State
 
Paleocon said:
If you want my position on that, start a thread about it. I'm not going to derail this thread with that red herring.
Click to expand...

I was just asking for your clarification on your position. It seems you may be uncomfortable doing so but that issue...public assistance...is strongly linked to the societal effects from unwanted and unaffordable children.
 
calamity said:
Laws just get in the way of what's really right. Correct?
Click to expand...

In general, laws apply higher laws to more particular situations (e.g. the moral law demands that sellers disclose faults in their goods, positive law establishes specific standards of consumer protection). There are certain purported laws which instruct people to behave in contravention of higher laws, and these must not be adhered to.

But an important point is that these cases are corruptions of law, law behaving in ways it isn't supposed to.

roguenuke said:
Then your argument is basically over semantics.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. BD and PVS are different medical diagnosis, and even current law treats them differently. Consent of the next-of-kin is not required to disconnect a brain dead patient, nor could a brain dead patient survive without the assistance of a ventilator (whereas PVS can, as Schiavo did).

ajn678 said:
This is another area where Republicans completely twist themselves around with their religious beliefs. Republicans very often say "You can't play god" to people that are pro-choice, yet they often oppose the ability for someone who is solely being kept alive by machines to be removed from these machines. Again, Republicans are not worried about the quality of someone's life, they just care that they are still "alive" in their eyes. They believe it is god's choice on when someone dies, yet they attempt to keep people alive who would be dead by machines. Utter hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

By "machines" you mean feeding tubes. I'm not aware of anyone who opposes the removal of ventilators with familial consent.

And yes, I believe caretakers have a duty to feed those in their care. Feeding someone isn't playing God, though refusing to feed one's wards is murder (and the law treats it as such in most cases).

Lursa said:
Dont be silly, almost without exception, most societies, and all free societies, over the millenia have more towards more equality and respect for women
Click to expand...

Arguing against historical revisionism isn't something I'm interested in. Suffice to say, nearly all pre-modern societies would have found our ideas of "respect" very strange.

Lursa said:
I was just asking for your clarification on your position. It seems you may be uncomfortable doing so but that issue...public assistance...is strongly linked to the societal effects from unwanted and unaffordable children.
Click to expand...

I'm fine discussing it, but I'm not going to help derail this thread.
 
digsbe said:
Here's the thing about these though... States have a right to regulate medical practice. They set up boards of medicine, define legality and standards behind how one can use various healthcare licenses, and set standards of care. I think it's well within a state's right to make abortion providers have admitting privileges under the umbrella of patient safety. Even if it's a proxy behind trying to ban abortion I think it violates the state's rights to regulate healthcare, they set standards all the time for other things. Heck, this is little to nothing compared to how they regulate controlled substance medications haha.
Click to expand...

Therein lies the sticky wicket. I agree that states have the right to regulate medical practices. When states hide behind their right to regulate as a matter of obfuscating their attempt to deny a defined individual right (in this case, the right of a woman to an abortion), then it becomes a matter for the federal courts, as happened here.
 
upsideguy said:
Therein lies the sticky wicket. I agree that states have the right to regulate medical practices. When states hide behind their right to regulate as a matter of obfuscating their attempt to deny a defined individual right (in this case, the right of a woman to an abortion), then it becomes a matter for the federal courts, as happened here.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and no state law can trump a federal law. The state is just going to have to find something else dishonest to try.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom